export_gcode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details internal mechanism (Plater::export_gcode_to, DBus channel), completion detection (file appearance), and return value (parsed header summary). This is fairly transparent, though it omits potential side effects like overwriting existing files.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: action statement, technical mechanism, and outcome. No superfluous content; front-loaded with key verb and resource.

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?

While an output schema exists and the description mentions return value, the timeout parameter is undocumented. Error conditions or prerequisites are not covered, leaving some gaps for a moderate-complexity tool.

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%, and the description only mentions 'path' implicitly (absolute path) but does not explain the 'timeout' parameter or its default of 180. This leaves significant meaning undocumented beyond the schema.

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 slices the current plate and exports G-code to an absolute path, specifying the verb (slice/export) and resource (current plate, G-code). It distinguishes from siblings like print_gcode which prints instead.

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 explains the tool bypasses the file dialog and sends a DBus command, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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