Check Printability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and the explicit caveat about wall thickness, supports, and clearance honestly discloses what the tool will not report. It does not overstate capabilities, though it could be more explicit about side effects or operational constraints.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds an important limitation in the second clause. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Still, with no annotations and minimal description, the definition is only minimally viable: it gives the core purpose and a key limitation, but it lacks guidance about when to use this tool instead of related inspection or validation tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. While parameter names like project_id, build_volume, and require_watertight are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how they relate to 'check mesh and build extents' or how require_watertight affects the check.

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 verb 'check' and the resources 'mesh and build extents', and it further clarifies scope by listing what remains unknown. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like inspect_mesh, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 limitation statement 'wall thickness, supports and clearance stay unknown' implies this is a basic printability check and suggests other tools would be needed for those aspects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_mesh or validate_scad.

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