inspect_3mf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does partially pay off by enumerating the returned data (plates, estimated print time, filament weight/types/colours), which compensates for the absent output schema. It says nothing about failure modes (unsliced/corrupt file), path resolution (local vs server path), or read-only/safety semantics.

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: verb+resource first, then the concrete fields returned after the colon. No filler, nothing repeated from the name or schema.

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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back, but it omits the two things an agent actually needs to call it successfully: what 'path' means and what happens on an invalid/unsliced file.

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?

There is one parameter, 'path', at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not whether it is a server-local path, an uploaded-file reference, or how relative paths resolve. The one ambiguous input is left entirely undocumented.

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 verb (Read) and resource (sliced .3mf) and even enumerates the extracted fields (plates, print time, filament weight/types/colours). However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'inspect_print', which an agent could easily confuse it with when deciding how to inspect a print job.

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 phrase 'sliced .3mf' — an agent can infer this is for interrogating a slice file before printing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., inspect_print vs inspect_3mf).

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