cura_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the read happens 'explicitly on its main thread' — which implies a thread-affinity constraint the agent would not otherwise know. It says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the read is safe to call repeatedly.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and the resource list. The trailing 'explicitly on its main thread' is the only slightly awkward clause, but it carries real information rather than padding.

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-argument, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain of what is returned (machine, materials, scene, backend, build plates) well enough to set expectations. The main gap is that it never clarifies how this differs from cura_status when both are available.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and the empty schema plus additionalProperties=false leaves no ambiguity about the call shape.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources it touches: machine/profile, extruders/materials, scene objects, backend state, and sliced build plates. That enumeration meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like cura_status and cura_settings, though it never names those siblings directly to draw the contrast.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no routing to an alternative such as cura_status or cura_settings. 'Live' hints that it reads current state rather than cached data, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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