get_machine_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is retrieved, not behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention if this requires an active connection, has side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 ('Get full GRBL machine state') followed by specifics in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text.

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 (retrieving multiple machine state components) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is included but doesn't cover behavioral context or return format, leaving gaps for the 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full GRBL machine state') with detailed enumeration of what's included (positions, feed, spindle, overrides, buffer). It distinguishes from siblings like get_machine_position (only positions) and get_machine_settings (settings only).

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 specifying 'full GRBL machine state' and listing components, suggesting it's comprehensive. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. more specific siblings (e.g., get_machine_position for just positions) or alternatives like get_workflow_state.

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