check_print

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses a write side effect (emitting STL, attribution, print notes and submission notes next to the model) and conditional behavior for print time. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten, where 'next to the model' resolves to, or whether the check is non-destructive to the model itself.

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?

Two sentences, both dense and front-loaded: the checks come first, the side effect second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what is checked, the slicer conditional, and the file side effects. The remaining gap is the meaning/format of the 'name' argument and the destination of written files.

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?

The single required parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only says 'a model' without clarifying whether 'name' is a model name, slug, or path. That is a real ambiguity for the only argument, though the surface area of the gap is small.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (printability) and enumerates exactly what is validated: watertightness, volume, filament upper bound, print time, minimum feature and bed fit. It does not distinguish itself from the plausibly overlapping sibling analyze_model, so an agent must infer which to call.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the enumerated checks, and one real conditional is spelled out (print time only appears when a slicer is installed). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of analyze_model or describe_model as alternatives.

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