home

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail (the pen is lifted, so homing won't drag the pen across the work), but says nothing about whether the call blocks, how long it takes, or any connection prerequisites.

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 compact sentence with the key action front-loaded. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool physically does. The main gap is the absence of any indication of when the agent should invoke it or what happens on completion, but the operation is simple enough that little more is strictly required.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning the description could or should add.

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 states a specific verb (lift) and physical resource (the arm to its home position), which is distinctive against drawing siblings like draw_paths and preview_svg. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the homing action is self-evidently distinct.

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 description never says when to call this tool, under what conditions the arm should be homed, or how it relates to siblings like abort or draw_paths. Usage must be inferred entirely from the action itself.

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