intercept_gcode_command

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the result indicates action (ALLOW/BLOCK/MODIFY/PAUSE/ALERT) and includes modified command and reasons. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects of blocking/modifying.

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 concise with a clear intro, purpose statement, and parameter details. Slight improvement could be made with better structural separation, but it is efficient and to the point.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently covers return values. It contextualizes the tool within the interception workflow. Could be enhanced by explicitly mentioning the need for an active interception session, though implied by 'session_id'.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters: 'session_id' as active interception session ID and 'command' as raw G-code string with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 it evaluates a G-code command against interception rules, specifying the verb 'Evaluate' and resource 'G-code command'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_gcode' or 'validate_gcode' by positioning itself as the core interception tool.

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 instructs to pass each G-code command through this tool before sending to the printer, providing clear use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, such as 'validate_gcode' for non-interception scenarios.

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