slice

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description does real work: parallel execution, per-bed settings, output written to the job folder, viewer opened only once per session, and an explicit 'does not print'. Missing is what happens on existing output (overwrite?) or failure, but the important side effects are disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentences state the action and its limit before the argument notes. The Args block partially duplicates the schema but does add default semantics, so it earns most of its space.

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 prose, and both parameters are explained. What is under-specified is the implicit context — which job the slice applies to and whether re-slicing overwrites prior output.

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 carry the parameters and it does: beds are bed names defaulting to all beds, and open_viewer starts and opens the viewer once per session. Minor gap is where bed names come from and what an empty/null beds value expands to.

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?

Specific verb (slice) plus resource (beds) and names the backend (PrusaSlicer) and the destination (job folder). The line 'Does not print anything' usefully bounds scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool preview, which would be the natural point of confusion.

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 negative statement ('Does not print anything') and by the default behaviours, but there is no explicit when-to-call, no prerequisites about an existing job/models, and no comparison to preview or arrange. The agent must infer when slicing is the right next step.

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