gcode_safety_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists what it checks but does not specify return format, side effects (assumed read-only but not stated), or how results are communicated. Lacks clarity on what happens after the check.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not describe what the output contains (e.g., list of issues, severity). For a safety tool, this is a notable gap. It covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness on results and parameter clarification.

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?

The single parameter 'file_path_or_code' has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify whether it expects a file path or inline G-code string. This ambiguity hinders correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool checks G-code for safety issues and lists specific examples (spindle off, missing unit declaration, zero feedrate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gcode_estimate_time and ugs_run_file by focusing on safety verification.

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?

Explicitly recommends running this tool before ugs_run_file for unfamiliar G-code. While it doesn't state when to skip, the context implies it's not needed for self-written code.

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