analyze_toolpaths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an existing sliced gcode file, what the output shape is, or any cost/limits. Only the vague word 'optionally' hints at optional behavior.

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 compact sentence with the output summary front-loaded and the optional capability trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the ellipsis-after-a-list style is slightly informal for a spec.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the only source of truth and is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what is required, what the parameters do, or what the result looks like, which is inadequate for a three-parameter analysis tool.

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% across three parameters. The description only obliquely gestures at 'optionally the slowest layers', which loosely maps to include_layers and max_layers, but never names them, gives no defaults, and says nothing about the required gcode_path. It fails to compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific resource and result: time and material broken down per move type (perimeters, infill, bridges, travel), with an optional layer breakdown. This tells an agent what the tool produces. However it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling get_gcode_metrics, leaving ambiguity about which analysis tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gcode_metrics or find_print_risks, nor any prerequisite (e.g. gcode must already be sliced). Usage must be inferred from the sibling list, which is exactly the inference the description should spare the agent.

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