home_axes

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a confirmation requirement, a hard state precondition (blocked during a print), and model-specific physical behavior (inductive probe on Max4 during Z homing). It doesn't cover failure modes such as probe errors or what happens when homing is interrupted, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each following sentence adding a distinct fact (subset syntax, model-specific behavior, preconditions). No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers preconditions, hardware quirks, and the axes argument adequately for a three-parameter tool. The only material omission is the purpose and lifecycle of confirm_token.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains the 'axes' string format with an example and the default-to-all behavior, and states confirm must be true. The third parameter, confirm_token, is never mentioned, leaving a real gap in the confirm flow.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Home the printer') and names the underlying G28 semantics plus a subset form, which separates it from motion siblings like move_absolute and from calibration siblings like z_tilt_adjust. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-call guidance: omit axes for full homing, pass 'xy' for a subset, confirm=true required, and blocked during a print. It does not say what to call instead if homing is blocked or what to do before homing (e.g. clear the bed), so exclusions are covered but alternatives are not.

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