get_slicing_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says 'async' and 'check progress', but doesn't state whether the job can expire, whether results are cached, how often to poll, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with a long-running process.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and a hint of return values. It is efficient and contains no waste. A 4 rather than 5 because it could be slightly more structured or scannable, but it's well-sized for the tool's complexity.

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 status-check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain return format, possible status values, error conditions, or polling behavior. The mention of 'print duration and filament weight metrics' hints at output but doesn't fully cover the tool's behavior. Significant gaps remain.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single required parameter 'jobId'. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no further syntax, format, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Check progress of an async 3D slicing job by ID'. It also mentions return metrics. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like submit_slicing_job or calculate_quote, but the ID reference implies usage after job submission. Still, without naming alternatives, it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when to use this tool (after submitting an async slicing job) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools are provided. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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