fits_on_printer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that 45° rotation is considered and that an empty printer value scans all known printers. It does not go into edge cases like invalid printer names, but the output schema likely covers return expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then a valuable behavioral note, then a terse parameter list. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 fit-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, units, rotation behavior, and printer selection behavior. It could be slightly stronger with explicit guidance on choosing between this tool and its siblings, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, but the description documents all four parameters with units, examples, and default behavior. Each dimension is explained as 'in mm', and printer is illustrated with concrete names plus the all-printers default.

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 specific verb and resource: checking whether a part fits on a printer build plate. It also adds a distinctive detail (45° in-plane rotation), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools material_guide and print_estimate.

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 intended use is implied through the description and parameter documentation, especially the note that leaving printer empty checks all known printers. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with material_guide or print_estimate, nor does it state when not to use it.

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