jog

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 incremental mode behavior ('Uses incremental mode ($J=G91)'), which is valuable context beyond basic parameters. However, it doesn't mention safety considerations, machine state prerequisites, or what happens during execution (e.g., whether motion is immediate or queued).

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core functionality and technical detail with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, and the second specifies the operational mode.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and mode but lacks details on error conditions, machine state requirements, or output expectations, which would be helpful given the tool's potential safety implications.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying axis movement and incremental mode, which aligns with but doesn't exceed schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('jog'), target resource ('CNC machine'), and method ('along an axis by a specified distance at a given feed rate'), with technical detail ('Uses incremental mode ($J=G91)') that distinguishes it from other movement tools like 'go_to_zero' or 'home_axes'.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'go_to_zero' (absolute positioning) or 'home_axes' (homing operation). The description implies usage for incremental movement but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions.

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