auto_pack

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as SLS-only availability, the Fuse X1 exception, and the behavioral difference between PACK_HEIGHT and PACK_VOLUME. It does not describe what happens to existing model placements, but destructiveHint covers the broad safety profile.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by compatibility constraints and mode semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fully covers the critical compatibility and mode-selection context, which is the hardest part of this tool. However, with no output schema and low parameter schema coverage, the missing semantics for seed, model spacing, and wall distance leave the agent under-equipped for non-default configurations.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does add useful semantics for packing_mode (PACK_HEIGHT minimizes build height, PACK_VOLUME tightest packing), but it leaves seed, model_spacing_mm, and distance_from_wall_mm unexplained, creating a significant 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 and resource: 'Pack all models into the 3D build chamber.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling auto_layout by clarifying the SLS/SLA split, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 says when to use this tool: SLS printers only, with concrete machine-type prefixes (FS or PILK). It names the alternative for SLA printers (auto_layout) and gives an explicit exclusion for Fuse X1, where PreFormServer refuses the operation.

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