gcode_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read from' implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't confirm read-only status, describe behavior on non-gcode or missing files, or note any performance cost. Minimal viable disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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 that identifies the source file first and the returned data second. Efficient, with no filler, though 'key settings' is left vague.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data categories. The remaining gap is the path semantics, which neither the schema nor the description covers.

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?

The single required parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. An agent must infer that 'path' means a filesystem path to a .gcode file, with no guidance on format, relative vs absolute, or error conditions.

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 (read) and resource (an existing .gcode file) and enumerates what it returns: print-time, filament, layer estimates and key settings. It is distinguishable from slice_model (which creates gcode) because it targets an already-existing file, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with preview_gcode.

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 word 'existing' implies it should be used on files that have already been sliced, which separates it from slice_model. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over preview_gcode or model_info, nor what preconditions (a valid .gcode path) must hold.

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