send_gcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful constraints: a 20-line cap, an allowlist of accepted command classes, and a state-dependent restriction during printing. It stops short of stating what happens on rejection or what the response contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload limit and allowlist front-loaded ahead of the printing-state exception. Every clause constrains behavior; nothing is filler.

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 an un-annotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers safety constraints well but omits permissions/authorization context and any indication of success/failure behavior. It is adequate for a low-complexity two-parameter call but leaves gaps.

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 50%: printer_id is documented in the schema, while gcode has no description. The description partially compensates by implying multi-line G-code input ('up to 20 lines'), but it doesn't define formatting for the gcode parameter or clarify the printer_id default beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Send... G-code') and immediately scopes the payload ('up to 20 lines'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_speed or set_temperature, which achieve narrow effects declaratively rather than by raw G-code.

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?

Provides a concrete when-not rule: 'Not allowed during a print unless it is a temp/fan/speed command.' That negative condition is valuable, but it never routes the agent to the sibling tools (set_speed, set_temperature, set_light) for cases that fall outside the allowlist.

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