grinder_mathDetermine steps/clicks difference and directions between setting labels (C3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_label | Yes | ||
| from_label | Yes | ||
| grinder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | Yes | ||
| direction | Yes | ||
| step_unit | Yes | ||
| burr_gap_travel_microns | Yes | ||
| relative_coarseness_note | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description aligns with this by framing the tool as a read-only calculation. It does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid label handling or grinder-state dependencies, but the annotations reduce the burden.
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 one compact sentence with no filler, placing the verb and core concept first. The parenthetical '(C3)' is slightly unexplained and could be confusing, but overall the structure is efficient.
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 calculation tool with three required parameters and no parameter descriptions, this is thin. It does not state when to use it, what units the result uses, how labels are represented, or what failure modes exist. The presence of an output schema helps, but the overall context remains minimal.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. The phrase 'between setting labels' clarifies that from_label and to_label are endpoints of a comparison, and the result is described as steps/clicks difference and direction. It does not explain label format, allowed values, or the role of grinder_id beyond obvious identification.
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 ('Determine') and a concrete object: steps/clicks difference and direction between two setting labels. It clearly conveys a calculation tool and is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or explain what 'C3' refers to.
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 intended use case is implied: call this when the agent needs to compute a steps/clicks difference and direction between two setting labels. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related grinder tools like get_dial_state or set_grinder_position, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the list/register/update/set tool families are easy to tell apart. The closest pair is diagnose_preview and diagnose_shot, which are well-described but similar enough in name that an agent could select the wrong one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_beans, register_grinder, update_shot, set_active). Minor exceptions like grinder_math and kb_changelog lack the imperative verb prefix, but they are readable and do not create real confusion.
34 tools is above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is fairly rich. The many parallel list_* and register_* tools for beans, grinders, machines, scales, waters, programs, and recipes could plausibly be consolidated or trimmed without losing core capability.
The core shot lifecycle is well covered: log, update, delete, diagnose, and list shots, plus bean registration and maintenance tracking. However, most registered entities lack update/delete tools, and get_rule has no corresponding list_rules tool, leaving some obvious workflow gaps that agents must work around.