send_gcode

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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it mentions safety level auto-classification and the requirement for 'confirm=true' on dangerous commands, which are critical behavioral traits for safe operation. However, it does not cover other aspects like error handling or response format.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial safety guidance. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by providing essential 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 sending commands to a CNC machine, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers safety aspects and parameter usage, but it could benefit from mentioning potential outputs or error conditions. However, for a tool with 2 parameters and good schema coverage, it provides adequate context.

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 documents both parameters fully. The description adds some meaning by explaining the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter in relation to command safety, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('send') and resource ('single G-code or Grbl command to the CNC machine'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_gcode_program' (which likely runs multiple commands) by specifying 'single' command.

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 on when to use the 'confirm' parameter for DANGEROUS/CRITICAL commands, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_gcode_program' or other CNC control tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks sibling differentiation.

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