check_print_risks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the exact heuristics (height vs. footprint width, narrow footing without brim, filament temp of 0 for the plate, tall parts sharing a crowded plate), but never says whether the tool is read-only, whether anything is modified, or what form the warnings take.

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?

The risk summary is front-loaded before the checklist, so an agent can stop reading after one clause. The enumerated criteria are dense but each maps to a distinct check, though the parenthetical asides (e.g. "pins lying on their side") cost more words than they return.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what an agent gets back (a list of warnings? a score? per-plate groupings?) and whether the call is side-effect free. It covers the input scope well but leaves the return contract entirely unspecified for a diagnostic tool.

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% and the sole parameter has no description, so the schema alone would leave "plate" ambiguous. The phrase "Per plate (0 = all)" supplies the one non-obvious semantic, resolving the default value's meaning; it adds nothing about valid ranges beyond that.

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?

The description states a specific analysis: predicting parts that will come off or topple plus settings that don't fit, scoped per plate. It is clear what the tool produces conceptually, but it never contrasts itself with the near-sibling check_object, so an agent must guess which checker to reach for.

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?

"Before a long print" gives a concrete timing condition for invocation, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g. check_object) for single-object inspection.

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