unlock_machine

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 clearing alarm state and unlocking, which implies a state-changing operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. The description adds basic context but is incomplete for a tool that likely requires caution.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the action and usage condition without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits like safety implications or response format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's context ('after an alarm condition'), which compensates for the lack of parameters. No semantic gaps exist, but the description doesn't need to detail parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('Clear alarm state and unlock') and resource ('the machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'soft_reset' or 'cycle_resume' by focusing on post-alarm recovery. It explicitly mentions the trigger condition ('after an alarm condition'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Use after an alarm condition,' which clearly indicates when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. It implies this is not for general unlocking but specifically for clearing alarms, differentiating it from other control tools like 'home_axes' or 'go_to_zero'.

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