upload_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool handles FTPS, REST multipart, and serial transfer automatically, and that after upload the file appears in printer_files() and can be started. However, it omits error handling, file size limits, authentication requirements, and potential side effects like overwriting.

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, using three short paragraphs plus an Args section. It front-loads the purpose, then explains protocols, parameter requirements, and post-conditions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 upload tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, requirements, and expected outcome (file appears in printer_files()). It also references related tools (printer_files, start_print), providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke and chain correctly.

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 single parameter file_path is described in detail: it must be an absolute path, exist, be readable, and have a recognized extension (.gcode, .gco, .g). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type string, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Upload a local G-code file to the printer.' It specifies the verb (upload) and resource (local G-code file), and distinguishes from siblings like send_gcode by focusing on file upload. The mention of handling multiple transfer protocols further clarifies its unique role.

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 indicates when to use (when you have a local G-code file to upload) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The reference to printer_files() and start_print() implies subsequent steps but lacks exclusions or comparison to other tools.

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