Enviar linha(s) de G-code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose LAN-mode operation and warns to use caution during prints, but it does not mention authentication prerequisites, error behavior, or that commands are sent without validation.

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 short sentences with no filler: action first, then use cases, then a safety caution. Every sentence earns its place.

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 send-command tool, the description covers purpose, typical commands, and a safety warning. It omits response/error details and explicit prerequisites, but the schema covers parameters and no output schema is expected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds example G-code values but does not elaborate on ip, serial, or access_code semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Envia') and a clear resource ('G-code diretamente para a impressora'), and it gives concrete examples such as M104/M140, M106, G28/G0. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from file-management and print-control siblings.

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?

It enumerates concrete use cases (temperature, fans, axes, LED), which tells an agent when to invoke it. It also adds a caution for use during prints, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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