estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: it discloses the cost model (spool price when a spool occupies the matching slot, otherwise per-type price; electricity derived from print time and configured power draw; machine wear; failure-rate-adjusted cost per good part). It does not cover error cases such as a missing printer or unmapped spool, but the computation semantics are unusually well exposed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence posing the core question, followed by the cost breakdown in a parenthetical. Dense but every clause carries information; the nested parenthetical slightly hampers scanning but does not waste words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description effectively stands in for return-value documentation by enumerating the cost components included in the estimate. It is complete enough for an agent to know what it will get back at a conceptual level, though units, currency, and the shape of the result are unstated.

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 only 25% (only printer_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for printer_id (which price source is used) and for file_path (must be a sliced file), but plate and quantity are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both places.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: estimating the print cost of a specific sliced file. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cost_report or configure_cost, which report or configure rather than estimate for one file.

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 implied by the framing question ('What will this sliced file cost to print?'), which tells the agent this is a per-file pre-print estimate. However, it never states when to prefer it over cost_report, nor any prerequisites such as the file needing to be sliced or a printer needing to be selected.

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