run_gcode_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending G-code 'one line at a time' and the confirm requirement, which adds some context about execution flow and safety. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like potential destructive effects (e.g., machine movement), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with physical machinery.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key requirement. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity of interacting with a machine via G-code and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, safety implications, or how the 'one line at a time' execution affects behavior. For a tool with potential physical consequences, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('gcode' as 'Multi-line G-code program' and 'confirm' as 'Must be true to execute'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the confirm requirement, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Send a multi-line G-code program to the machine') and the resource ('G-code program'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_gcode' or 'run_macro', which might handle similar operations, leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing exact use cases.

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 provides some context by stating 'Requires confirm=true', which implies a prerequisite for execution, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_gcode' or 'run_macro'. The usage is implied through the confirm requirement, but lacks clear when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives.

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