check_filament

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the two checks performed and implies a read-only validation, but it says nothing about what the result looks like (per-printer pass/fail?), behavior on error, or whether it has side effects. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a validation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and then the concrete checks. No filler. The only mild cost is the conversational 'Before queueing:' preamble, which does double duty as usage guidance.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, so the description bears the full burden. It explains what is checked but not the response shape, the treated plate, or failure semantics — not enough for an agent to consume the result reliably.

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% for both parameters, and the description never mentions 'plate' — which is consequential since plate selection determines what is actually checked in a multi-plate sliced file. 'This sliced file' only loosely maps to file_path. The description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific check ('will this sliced file fit on each printer?') and the two conditions it verifies (matching filament loaded, enough grams in the spools). This is clearly distinct from spool_list or queue_add, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Before queueing' gives a concrete workflow trigger and makes the intended call site obvious relative to queue_add. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the timing context is clear enough for an agent to place the call correctly.

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