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. It discloses that this is a write operation ('Clear') and mentions a prerequisite (alarm resolution), but doesn't detail side effects (e.g., whether it resets other machine states), error conditions, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, though the description is technically accurate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys essential information without fluff.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for its complexity—it explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or the return format, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no parameters are needed by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for 0 parameters, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.

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 ('Clear GRBL alarm state ($X)') and the resource ('machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_alarm_info' (which reads alarms) or 'emergency_stop' (which triggers a different safety action). It uses precise technical terminology ($X) that matches the tool name.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use after resolving the cause of the alarm'), providing a prerequisite condition. It also implies when not to use it (i.e., if the alarm cause isn't resolved), though it doesn't name specific alternatives—given the context, this is sufficient as the tool's purpose is narrowly scoped to post-alarm clearance.

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