Post Process

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds that the operation converts toolpaths to NC code, but it does not disclose side effects such as writing files to output_folder or requiring valid toolpaths, leaving the agent to infer persistence behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and output with no filler. Every word 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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain what the agent should expect after invocation, such as confirmation, written file paths, or errors. It is adequate for selection but incomplete for reliable invocation of an action with five 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 description coverage is 80%, and the input schema already documents setup_name, operation_name, output_folder, units, and post_processor behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying the result is NC code, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Post-process toolpaths to generate NC code (G-code)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cam_generate_toolpath by naming the final output artifact.

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 phrase 'post-process toolpaths' implies the tool is used after toolpath generation, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over cam_generate_toolpath or other CAM siblings, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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