trigger_bed_level

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a G-code command, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details such as whether the operation is synchronous, whether it requires the printer to be idle, or what the response/return value indicates.

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 short and front-loaded, with three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers basic usage. However, it lacks details on return values, side effects (e.g., printer movement), or prerequisites (e.g., printer homing), which would make it more 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful information for the only parameter ('printer_name: Target printer. Omit for the default printer.'), compensating for the schema gap and providing clear semantics.

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 tool triggers a bed leveling/mesh probe and specifies the G-code commands (G29 or BED_MESH_CALIBRATE), distinguishing it from related sibling tools like bed_level_status (which reports status) and set_leveling_policy (which configures settings).

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 context on when to use the tool (triggering leveling) but does not explicitly advise against using alternatives like bed_level_status or set_leveling_policy. It implies usage for performing the action but lacks explicit when-not or exclusion guidance.

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