make_flow_test

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the side effect of adding a plate of objects and explains how to read the results (smoothest top = best), but omits whether it creates a new plate or modifies the current one, what filament/printer prerequisites apply, and whether printing the plate is required.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the procedural detail in order of use. Slightly extra prose in the second sentence, but every line contributes actionable 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?

Adequate for a tool with no annotations, no output schema and an undocumented schema, since it covers the calibration workflow and most parameters. However, the unexplained 'filament' parameter and the unstated plate-creation side effect leave an agent guessing about prerequisites.

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, and it does well for three of four parameters, giving concrete low/high/step values for both passes. The 'filament' slot parameter (default 1) is never explained, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a plate of flow-rate squares for a filament slot', each engraved with a different flow modifier. An agent can tell this is a calibration-plate generator, distinct in substance from towers or retraction tests. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related make_max_flow_test, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Provides a concrete two-pass workflow ('Pass 1: -20..+20 step 5. Pass 2: around the best one') plus a selection criterion for the resulting squares. That is strong procedural guidance for how and when to use the tool, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer make_max_flow_test) are named.

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