analyze_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: it generates a preview image in addition to computed metrics, and it consults installed layer heights and printer fit. It does not disclose cost, file requirements, or failure modes.

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 opening with the workflow cue 'Geometry before slicing:' followed by a compact enumeration. The list is dense but every item is a concrete output, so there is little waste; the trailing 'plus a preview image' is well placed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metrics and the preview image. What remains missing is input guidance on path format and the effect of optional printer/nozzle defaults, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'fit on the printer' and 'which installed layer heights hit them exactly' imply how the printer and nozzle parameters are consumed. However, the required 'path' parameter is never characterized (file type, local vs. remote), and nothing explains behavior when nozzle/printer are omitted.

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 names the resource (model geometry) and enumerates the specific analyses performed: size, fit, overhang share, bed contact, slenderness, flat tops, layer-height hits, and suggested object types. The phrase 'Geometry before slicing' positions it in the workflow relative to the slice_model sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Geometry before slicing' implies the usage window (pre-slice inspection) but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer whether this is mandatory preparation or an optional diagnostic compared with slice_model or compare_slices.

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