run_calibrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs physical calibration steps (homing, auto bed leveling) and returns printer-specific guidance from an intelligence database. However, it does not detail side effects, safety implications, or the state of the printer after execution, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise with a clear summary paragraph and a separate parameter list. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though the parameter listing could be integrated more seamlessly. It earns its place with no wasted sentences.

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 tool's complexity (full calibration pipeline), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description explains what the tool does and what it returns (intelligence tips). However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by labeling 'printer_name' as 'Registered printer name' and 'printer_id' as 'Printer model ID for calibration guidance'. However, both parameters are optional with no clarification on required scenarios or behavior when omitted, partially compensating but not fully.

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 'Full calibration pipeline: home + bed level + printer-specific guidance (recommended)' and distinguishes from sibling 'calibrate_direct' by noting it is higher-level and orchestrates the full sequence. The specific verb 'run' and resource 'calibrate' with explicit steps (homing, auto bed leveling) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 identifies when to use this tool by stating it is 'recommended' and higher-level than 'calibrate_direct'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the sibling comparison, which is a minor gap.

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