jog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds critical context: 'HIGH RISK — causes physical motion' clearly warns of safety implications and physical consequences, which is essential for a tool that moves machinery. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects (e.g., collision risks, machine state changes) or operational constraints like rate limits or prerequisites (e.g., machine must be unlocked).

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: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides critical risk context. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 high-risk tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and risk warning but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity (physical motion tool), it should ideally include more about safety prerequisites or machine state requirements to be fully complete.

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 three parameters (axis, distance, feedrate) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying motion occurs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified parameter interactions (e.g., how distance and feedrate combine).

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: 'Jog the machine incrementally' specifies the verb (jog) and resource (machine) with the action (incremental motion). It distinguishes from siblings like 'home_machine' or 'send_gcode' by focusing on manual movement control. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'set_feed_override' which affects motion parameters but doesn't directly cause movement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'HIGH RISK — causes physical motion' which implies caution but doesn't specify scenarios where jogging is appropriate (e.g., manual positioning vs. automated moves) or when to use other motion-related tools like 'home_machine' or 'send_gcode'. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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