Enviar arquivo para o SD da impressora

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state the network protocol (FTPS) and that it is an upload, but it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, permission requirements, or failure modes. The action is clear, but transparency is limited compared to what could be expected for a write operation.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured – two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and a useful follow-up hint at the end. Every part serves a purpose: what it does, how it does it, and what to do next. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential purpose, transfer method, and next step. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., FTPS credentials) or error handling, but these are not critical for a basic upload operation and are partially implied by the sibling tools like bambu_check_setup. A minor gap, but overall adequate.

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%, meaning all five parameters have descriptive text. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema; it only reiterates that local_path is a local file and mentions the typical extension. It does not clarify relationships or edge cases, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific action (sends a local file to the printer's SD card) with the method (via FTPS) and typical file type (.gcode.3mf). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the follow-up tool, and the verb 'Envia' + resource 'arquivo local' is unambiguous.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you have a local sliced file to upload) and gives a direct usage pattern: 'Depois use bambu_start_print voor imprimi-lo' – a clear pointer to the next step. This effectively guides the agent on how to chain operations, though it doesn't explicitly mention 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.