home_axes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the homing action but lacks details on safety implications, whether it's destructive to current positions, required machine state, or potential errors. For a tool that likely involves physical movement, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second adds crucial detail about parameters. 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple tool with one optional parameter. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, machine state requirements, or what happens after homing, which are important for a physical operation tool in this context.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that the 'axes' parameter is optional (defaults to all) and clarifies the purpose of specifying individual axes. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description enhances understanding of default behavior, warranting a higher score.

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 purpose: 'Run homing cycle' specifies the action, and 'Homes all axes by default, or specify individual axes' clarifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'go_to_zero' or 'set_zero' by focusing on homing rather than positioning, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context by mentioning default behavior (homes all axes) and the option to specify individual axes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unlock_machine' or 'soft_reset' for machine preparation. 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.