find_print_risks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it does not say the operation is read-only, that it requires an already-sliced G-code file, how long an analysis may take, or what form the 'evidence' takes (line numbers? layer indices? severity?). 'With evidence' is a hint at output content but not a disclosure of 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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the outcome and parenthetically lists the concrete risk types, with no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, and the trailing ellipsis leaves the enumeration open-ended.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must stand alone, and it covers what the tool finds but not the prerequisite (a sliced G-code artifact) or the shape of the returned evidence. Adequate as a one-line summary, but not sufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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% and the description never mentions gcode_path at all, so the single required parameter is undocumented in both places. The agent gets no help on whether this is a filesystem path, a prior export artifact, or a path returned by another tool.

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 a concrete analysis outcome (possible print problems) and enumerates the risk categories it detects — warping, overhangs, long bridges, flow/machine limits — which clearly separates it from slicing or metrics siblings. The verb is only implicit (carried by the tool name) and it never states the operation runs against the G-code file, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite obvious candidates in the sibling list such as analyze_toolpaths and get_gcode_metrics. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this before slicing, after slicing, or instead of a toolpath analysis.

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