Post Process

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. But the description adds nothing behavioral: it never mentions that the tool writes G-code files to disk (output_folder), what happens on repeat runs or whether existing output is overwritten.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. It is tight, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than being an independent virtue.

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 6-parameter CAM operation with no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, the relationship to cam_generate_toolpath, and the fact that the operation produces files as side effects. An agent could invoke it correctly from the schema alone but lacks the workflow context.

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 83% with rich per-parameter notes (e.g., the fanuc integer-only program_name constraint, post-processor resolution rules), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond naming the G-code output, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb+resource+result: post-processes toolpaths to produce NC code (G-code), which is clearly distinct from CAM siblings like cam_create_setup and cam_create_operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from cam_generate_toolpath, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus cam_generate_toolpath, nor on prerequisites such as needing an existing setup with generated toolpaths. The only usage signal ('omit to post all in setup') lives in the schema, not the description.

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