skip_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for excluding failed parts without stopping the entire print,' which implies it modifies the print job dynamically. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error handling, or how it interacts with other printer operations. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies an active print job, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'object_ids' clearly documented as an array of numbers. The description adds context by explaining that these IDs are for 'specific objects' to skip during printing, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Skip specific objects during a multi-object print.' It specifies the verb ('skip'), resource ('objects'), and context ('during a multi-object print'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'printer_pause' or 'printer_stop', which might also affect printing operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for excluding failed parts without stopping the entire print.' This implies it should be used instead of stopping or pausing the print when only specific objects need to be skipped. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it (e.g., for single-object prints).

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