go_to_zero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the safety behavior (raising Z first) and execution flow, but doesn't mention potential risks (e.g., collisions if safeZ is too low), machine state requirements (e.g., must be unlocked), or what happens after completion. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and sequentially lists the key steps. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the safety sequence but doesn't cover error conditions, machine state dependencies, or what 'work coordinate zero' means contextually. It's minimally viable but could be more complete given the operational complexity.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why safeZ defaults to 10mm or typical feedRate values). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Move to work coordinate zero') and details the sequence of operations (raises Z, moves XY, lowers Z). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_zero' (which likely sets the zero point) and 'home_axes' (which homes to machine coordinates).

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 implies usage when needing to move to the work zero coordinate safely, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'jog' for manual movement or 'set_zero' for defining the zero point. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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