describe_plate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads from the last saved project file, implying a read-only, file-based operation rather than a live view. It also indicates the kinds of analysis it performs (object names, part structure, mesh defects), which goes beyond a vague 'describe' action. It does not mention behavior for missing/hidden files, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core answer of what the tool reports, and the second sentence adds differentiation and data source context. 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what information the tool provides, why to prefer it over a visual alternative, and where the data comes from. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what the parameterless call returns, which is useful. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report what is on the print plate, including objects, their parts, and mesh defects. It names specific kinds of information and distinguishes itself from image-based inspection. The phrase 'Prefer this over looking at an image' explicitly separates it from the thumbnail-related sibling tool.

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?

The description explicitly says to prefer this tool over looking at an image and explains the conditions: when exact names, part structure, or mesh problems are needed. This provides clear guidance that the render/thumbnail cannot provide this level of detail. It effectively routes the agent away from the image-based alternative.

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