resolve_model_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: reads embedded metadata, determines source, returns specific fields. It clearly indicates a read-only operation without destructive effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise and well-structured: starts with purpose, then method, then return values. Each sentence is informative and necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains what it does, how to use it, and what it returns, leaving no gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% so description must compensate. It provides ':param file_path: Path to the .3mf or .gcode.3mf file.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, specifying acceptable file formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Identify where a .3mf or .gcode.3mf file was downloaded from.' It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like extract_model_from_3mf by focusing on source identification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description includes explicit use case: 'Use this when you need to trace a file back to its source — for example, to find the original STL files on MakerWorld when the .gcode.3mf only contains pre-sliced G-code without mesh geometry.' It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.