reprint_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does important work: it states the result is 'Saved as a new file (never overwrites)' and 'the open project is not changed', plus auto-slicing and same printer/process/filament settings. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs. Gaps remain on edge cases (e.g. name default, behavior when slice=false), keeping it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information (outcome, example, brim rule, save/slice behavior, follow-up workflow). The single run-on sentence with parentheses and semicolons is dense and could be split for readability, but little is wasted.

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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers outcome, non-destructiveness, slicing, layout, and the print workflow. Only the name/slice parameter semantics and any return indication are left thin.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains brim ('brim=True gives each an outer brim') and objects ('names or ids (see get_project)'), but the name and slice parameters are only implicitly referenced ('Saved as a new file', 'sliced') with no semantics for the empty-name default or slice=False. Two of four parameters are well covered.

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 operation: create a new project containing only a subset of the open project's objects, using the same settings, re-laid-out and sliced. The concrete example (a part that came off the plate and was skipped) makes the resource and verb unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like duplicate_object or new_project, so it falls short of 5.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('e.g. a part that came off the plate and was skipped') and even the follow-up workflow ('open_project(file) then send_to_printer to print it'). This is clear usage context, but it stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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