run_gcode

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a safety gate for dangerous commands but omits critical details such as permissions required, consequences of executing arbitrary G-code, and what happens if confirm is omitted for a dangerous command.

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?

The description is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity is arguably under-specification for a tool with no annotation or schema support, making it too terse to be fully effective.

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 hardware execution tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that only covers return values, the description should explain parameter meanings, execution context, and safety implications. It only addresses one narrow safety condition, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it safely.

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. The description only clarifies the role of confirm for dangerous commands, leaving the expected format of gcode and the purpose of the printer parameter completely undocumented.

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 phrase 'Ejecuta G-code' gives a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling performs G-code execution, making the purpose 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?

The description states a condition: dangerous commands require confirm=True. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like restart_klipper or validate_config, nor does it define what counts as 'dangerous'. Usage is implied but not fully specified.

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