make_max_flow_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose a key side effect (writes a separate project file, leaves the open project untouched). It does not say whether the new project is opened/activated, what it returns (name/id), how long the test takes, or what printer/material prerequisites exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the non-destructive scoping note, then the mechanics, then interpretation guidance. The interpretation sentence is long but earns its place by telling the agent how to convert the result into a setting.

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 4-parameter calibration generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, side effects and result interpretation reasonably. It leaves unclear what the tool returns (project reference) and the exact semantics of the undocumented numeric parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: it establishes that low/high/step are volumetric speed Q values in mm³/s and that the filament parameter refers to a filament slot. But it never maps names to parameters explicitly or explains the units/meaning of `step` or how a slot index is chosen.

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: generates a max volumetric speed test as a separate project file with single-wall cylinders. It also clarifies scope (the open project is not changed), which an agent needs. It doesn't explicitly name sibling calibration tools (make_flow_test, make_vfa_test, make_pa_tower), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

"Default range: around the filament's current limit" and the 90% recommendation give useful operational context for choosing values and interpreting results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to make_flow_test or make_vfa_test, which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh.

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