home_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. It discloses the prerequisite (homing switches enabled) and implies a machine control action, but lacks details on safety, permissions, or response behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with potential operational impact.

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 with the core action and prerequisite in two concise sentences, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and prerequisite. However, for a tool that likely involves machine movement and safety considerations, it lacks details on behavioral outcomes or error handling, making it only adequate.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, maintaining clarity without redundancy.

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 ('Run GRBL homing cycle ($H)') and the resource ('Machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'unlock_machine' or 'jog' by focusing on homing functionality.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use ('Machine must have homing switches enabled'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives among siblings like 'unlock_machine' for similar operations.

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