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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's a high-risk operation that causes physical motion. This warns about safety implications and potential damage. It doesn't cover other aspects like error handling or response format, but the risk disclosure is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial risk context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

For a high-risk tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, risk, and parameter intent. It could improve by mentioning response expectations or connection requirements, but the risk warning addresses the most critical gap given the physical nature.

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 fully documents the 'gcode' parameter's type and format. The description adds value by explaining the purpose ('to send') and reinforcing it can be one or more lines, matching the schema's anyOf structure. No extra syntax details are needed, so it exceeds the baseline of 3.

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') and resource ('G-code lines to the machine'), specifying it can handle one or multiple lines. It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_gcode' (which loads but doesn't send) and 'run_macro' (which runs predefined sequences).

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 with 'HIGH RISK — causes physical motion', indicating when to use it (for direct machine control) and implicitly when not to (e.g., for non-motion commands). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'jog' for manual movement or specify prerequisites like needing an active connection.

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