回零

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation: it explains the instantaneous nature, simulation mode, the automatic move to Y=-180, and that no unlock is needed. This gives the agent critical operational knowledge.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers the full behavior, includes important caveats (simulation mode, no unlock), and directs users to alternatives, making it self-sufficient.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters; baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not add redundant parameter information.

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's function: all axes return to origin (0,0,0) and then move to Y=-180 safe position. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop and emergency_stop.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: homing is instantaneous in simulation mode, does not require unlock (unlike emergency stop), and users are directed to use stop for smooth deceleration without homing. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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