sw_print_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the actual computations, including that overhang regions are flagged as needing supports and that six orientations are evaluated. It stops short of saying what is returned (areas, verdicts, pass/fail) or whether the check is expensive.

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?

One compact sentence with the core capability front-loaded and zero filler. The telegraphic fragments ('bed contact', 'build-volume fit') are slightly cryptic but every phrase carries information.

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 four-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description should say what the agent receives back — numeric overhang area, boolean fit, a recommended orientation. That return-shape information is missing, though the inputs are fully covered by the schema and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so 'up', 'doc', 'build_volume' and 'max_overhang_angle' are already documented. The phrase 'best of six orientations' subtly explains the six-value 'up' enum, but the description adds no syntax or interpretation help for build_volume or the overhang angle threshold. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('3D-print check') and enumerates the exact analyses performed: overhang area with support implication, bed contact, orientation search, and build-volume fit. This is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like sw_interference or sw_mass_properties, though no sibling is named as a 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?

Usage is only implied by the name '3D-print check' and by terms like 'needs supports' — an agent can infer this is a pre-print validation. There is no explicit statement of when to run it, prerequisites, or alternatives such as checking interference or mass properties first.

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