slice_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does reasonably: it discloses the return structure (closed loops, largest first, mm polygon points) and the meaning of frame for 3MF ('object' vs 'build'). It implies a non-mutating read but never states that the source file is untouched or what happens on heights that miss the mesh.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the frame caveat. Efficient, though 'ready to use as profiles' is mild padding and the line breaks fragment the first sentence.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 0% param coverage, the description fills most needs: output shape, axis/frame value sets, and the target scenario. Missing only path expectations and edge-case behavior (empty sections, invalid file types).

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 the description must compensate, and it does for axis ('x'/'y'/'z'), heights_mm (heights along the axis) and frame ('object'/'build') — values the bare schema lacks. It does not describe path format or whether heights_mm accepts a single value vs array, leaving one gap.

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 (cross-sections/slice) and resource (STL/3MF mesh), names the axis and heights, and describes the output form (closed loops as polygon points in mm). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_with_mesh or get_bounding_box.

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?

Explicitly gives the scenario for use: 'For modelling a part that must fit something that only exists as a mesh.' Clear context, but it names no alternative or exclusion, so the agent must infer 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.