manufacturing_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing determinism and explicitly disclaiming any claim of machine safety, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint an agent should know before using the result.

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 a single focused sentence that starts with the action and resource, then lists outputs and the safety caveat. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

While the purpose and safety caveat are clear, the tool has nine loosely specified optional nested parameters with no descriptions and no guidance on how to populate them. The output schema exists, but the input side is too underspecified for reliable invocation, especially given the breadth of sibling analysis tools.

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 names none of the nine parameters. The schema's loose objects and arrays with propertyNames of type string provide almost no semantic guidance, and the description does not compensate for any of it, leaving an agent unable to construct a meaningful request.

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 action and resource: 'Run deterministic programming preflight' and specifies the return categories: 'blockers, warnings, unknowns, and evidence.' The caveat 'without claiming machine safety' differentiates it from safety-oriented analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 phrase 'preflight' implies a before-manufacturing or before-post-processing context, and 'without claiming machine safety' hints at an exclusion for safety sign-off. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like run_simulation, detect_collisions, or mastercam_doctor, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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