generate_recovery_gcode

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool is Pro-gated, and says nothing about where the G-code is written, whether failures in failure_id lookup abort or return empty, or how output_dir and overlap_layers affect the result. The paid-tier notice is genuinely useful context, but most behavioral questions are unanswered.

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?

Only one sentence of six describes the tool; the remaining text is plan-tier marketing and an upgrade URL. The one useful fact, the Pro requirement, is repeated twice ('(Pro)' and 'Requires Kiln Pro'), which is waste in an already diluted definition.

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?

This is a file-generating operation with a nested config object and no annotations or output schema. Given that complexity, the description should explain output location semantics and the role of printer_z_known, but it addresses neither, leaving the agent to guess before invoking a write-ish operation.

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 coverage is 33% on six parameters, and the description adds nothing about any of them. failure_id, printer_z_known, and the nested power_loss_probe_recovery object are undocumented in both places, so the agent gets no guidance on what failure_id refers to or what the nested recovery config should contain.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: generate a resume-from-layer G-code file for a failed print. That is enough to identify the tool, but it never distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as get_recovery_gcode_steps, plan_print_recovery, or wrap_gcode_as_resume_3mf, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many recovery tools. The only routing signal is the '(Pro)' marker, which tells the agent about entitlement rather than about when this tool is the right choice over start_print_recovery or resume_interrupted_print.

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