print_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well. It discloses key behavior: volume_cm3 takes precedence over dimensions, no file is needed, and the tool estimates material, weight, cost, and print time. It does not describe side effects, but an estimation tool is inherently non-destructive and the output schema is provided separately.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a short usage note, input-mode guidance, and a clean Args block. Every sentence provides actionable information and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the tool is fully specified for correct invocation. The description covers all parameters, explains the precedence rule, lists material choices, and notes that no file is needed. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It documents all 8 parameters with units, allowed material values, infill range, and layer height guidance. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property titles.

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: 'Schat materiaalgebruik, gewicht, kosten en printtijd voor een 3D-print.' This clearly names the tool's function and output domains. The scope (estimating print metrics) is distinct from the sibling tools material_guide and fits_on_printer, even without naming them.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool: it works on dimensions or a known volume and requires no file. It also gives input strategy: provide dimensions OR volume_cm3. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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