mesh_check_printability

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the evaluation criteria and the default printer profile, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether it is expensive/long-running on large meshes, or what happens on a failed/uncached check. Since an output schema exists, the missing return-format detail is acceptable, but the safety/cost profile is left unstated.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the check criteria and then the default profile. Slightly compressed to the point that the defaults sentence reads as a fragment rather than a complete explanation.

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 not be described. But for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema text and no annotations, the description should still cover path semantics and max_overhang_deg, which it does not — the definition is adequate but leaves an agent guessing on key inputs.

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% for 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'Bambu Lab A1 (256³), bico 0,4, camada 0,2' maps to bed_x/y/z_mm, nozzle_mm and layer_mm defaults. However, path, max_overhang_deg and the unit/format expectations for path are never explained, leaving real gaps.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (FDM printability check) and enumerates exactly the criteria evaluated: watertight mesh, separate bodies, minimum dimensions, overhang area, bed contact, orientation ranking. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling mesh_measure or mesh_render, so an agent could not confidently choose between them from the text alone.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-print validation step, but there is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the mesh must already be loaded or a path supplied), and no pointer to mesh_measure for plain dimension queries.

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