start_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires the machine to be in a specific state (e.g., homed, unlocked), what happens if no G-code is loaded, if it's idempotent, or what the execution entails (e.g., immediate start, queuing). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely controls physical machinery.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—'Start executing the loaded G-code program'—front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (likely controlling CNC/machinery), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, safety considerations, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing 'load_gcode' first). For a tool in this domain, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct given the schema completeness. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary repetition and focuses on the tool's action.

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 action ('Start executing') and the target resource ('the loaded G-code program'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_gcode' (which loads but doesn't execute) and 'stop_job'/'pause_job' (which control execution differently). However, it doesn't specify what type of job or machine context, which keeps it from a perfect 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 implies usage context through 'loaded G-code program', suggesting this tool should be used after loading G-code, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'run_macro' or 'send_gcode'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about proper sequencing with tools like 'get_loaded_gcode' or 'get_machine_state'.

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