spindle_control

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 'confirm' requirement for turning on, which is a critical safety behavior, but lacks details on other traits like potential risks (e.g., spindle damage if misused), response format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool that controls physical hardware with safety implications, 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, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 the complexity of controlling physical spindle hardware with safety implications, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as response behavior, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., machine state), or warnings about misuse. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'CW/CCW with speed' and the confirm requirement, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like speed ranges or action mappings beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose: 'Control the spindle: turn on (CW/CCW with speed) or off.' This specifies the verb ('Control') and resource ('spindle') with specific actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jog' or 'run_gcode_program' which might also involve machine control, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides some usage context with 'Turning on requires confirm=true,' which implies a safety requirement. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'send_gcode' for spindle control via G-code) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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