get_gcode_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read that returns computed values, but says nothing about whether the file must already exist, whether the path is absolute or relative, whether parsing failures raise errors, or how large outputs are handled.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the returned metrics. It is a noun phrase rather than a full clause, which slightly weakens the framing but wastes no words.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields (including filament units), which is the right thing to do. It still omits the input parameter's name/semantics and any error or file-availability behavior, leaving moderate gaps for a simple read 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter gcode_path is never mentioned by name, but the phrase 'of a PrusaSlicer G-code' does convey that the argument is a G-code file and constrains it to PrusaSlicer output. That adds real meaning over a bare string type, though it stops short of format or path expectations.

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 specific resource set (print time, filament in three units, cost, layers, profiles) drawn from a PrusaSlicer G-code, which clearly separates it from siblings like analyze_toolpaths or get_plate. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'reads' or 'returns', but 'metrics of a G-code' is unambiguous enough for selection.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as analyze_toolpaths (path-level detail) or slice (producing G-code). The only implicit guidance is that the input must already be a PrusaSlicer G-code, with no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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