inspect_slice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not run G-code, unknown firmware branches and mappings remain unknown, and reported targets are not actual temperatures or speeds. It does not describe return shape or permission requirements, but that is a minor gap given the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by mode selection and then key limitations. There is no obvious filler or repetition, and the structure helps an agent parse the main behavior 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?

For a read-only inspection tool, the description says what is inspected and adds important limitations about firmware mappings and temperature/speed targets. But with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, it leaves required project_id semantics and revision behavior undocumented and does not describe the shape of returned inspection data.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that job_id selects an exact succeeded revision and that otherwise the saved project is inspected, and it hints at revision behavior. However, it never explicitly explains the required project_id parameter or whether revision can be used independently or what its default behavior is, so compensation is only partial.

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, 'inspect,' and concrete resources: embedded G-code targets, object layers, and feature feeds. It also distinguishes job_id mode from saved-project mode, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like inspect_project as alternatives, so it falls short of maximal sibling differentiation.

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?

Clearly explains when to use job_id (to inspect an exact succeeded revision) versus otherwise inspecting the saved project, including older sliced imports. It also sets expectations about unknown firmware branches and that targets do not establish actual temperatures or speeds. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tools.

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