get_bed_mesh

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses return data structure and interpretation (high variance indicates warped bed). However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the data is cached. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with a bullet-like list inside. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate use case and limitation), but it remains concise and efficient.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how to interpret the data. It includes a specific use case and a platform limitation. For a simple read tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add param semantics. However, it adds value by explaining the output fields and their meaning, which is beyond what the empty schema provides. Given zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies the tool returns bed mesh/probe data, lists returned values (probed_matrix, mesh_min, mesh_max, variance), and distinguishes by stating it only works on OctoPrint and Moonraker, not Bambu Lab printers. This makes the purpose clear and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'diagnose first-layer adhesion issues' and provides a negative case: 'Not supported on Bambu Lab printers'. However, it does not compare with alternative sibling tools like bed_level_status or calibrate_direct, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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