run_sd_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'confirm=true' requirement, which is a critical safety or permission constraint, but does not address other potential behaviors such as whether this action is destructive (e.g., starts machine motion), requires specific machine states, or has side effects like pausing other operations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely controls 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the essential constraint ('Requires confirm=true') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by providing necessary information.

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 running G-code on a CNC machine (a potentially destructive action), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on safety implications, machine state requirements, or return values. However, it does cover the basic purpose and a key parameter constraint, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for such a high-stakes 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('filepath' and 'confirm'). The description adds value by emphasizing that 'confirm=true' is required, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema states (e.g., why confirmation is needed or filepath format details). 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 specific action ('Run a G-code file') and resource ('from the CNC controller's SD card'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_gcode_program' (which likely runs from memory) or 'send_gcode' (which sends individual commands). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context by specifying that it runs from the SD card, implying usage when files are stored there rather than in memory. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'run_gcode_program' for in-memory programs) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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