gcode_analyze

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values reported are 'declared' (i.e. from the G-code comments rather than recomputed) and that it extracts temperature commands, which is useful behavior. It does not state the operation is read-only, how large files are handled, or what happens on a malformed/non-G-code file.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key information (what is summarized) comes first and every clause adds a distinct category of extracted data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is covered, and the description adequately frames what the tool reports. However, the lone input parameter's meaning is left entirely undocumented and there is no guidance on supported inputs, leaving a meaningful gap for a one-parameter 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?

The only parameter, 'path', has zero schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The agent cannot tell whether it is a filesystem path, a relative path, or an artifact reference, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'summarize' plus the enumerated outputs (time/material/layers, settings, temperature commands) makes clear this parses a G-code file and reports extracted facts. It is unambiguous against siblings, none of which analyze G-code, though it never names the resource 'G-code' explicitly beyond the tool name.

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 use this versus alternatives (e.g. slice_project or project_inspect for metadata), no prerequisites, and no note on supported file types or path resolution. Usage is only implied by the word 'summarize' and the tool name.

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