Move a rifle component like the carrier along the barrel by a specified centimeter distance from its home position.
Draws a moving part of the rifle (such as carrier) back along the barrel, cm from home.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cm | Yes | ||
| part | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies physical actuation but says nothing about whether this is a simulation or real hardware, whether the motion is reversible, permission needs, valid part names, or what happens on an out-of-range value.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse, though the phrasing ('cm from home') is slightly awkward rather than maximally clear.
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 an actuation/motion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. Missing reversibility, valid values, and safety/context information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give meaning to both: 'part' with the example 'carrier', and 'cm' as distance 'from home'. But it leaves the valid set of part names and whether cm is a signed delta or absolute offset ambiguous.
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?
States a specific action (drawing/moving a rifle part) and its resource (a named moving part such as the carrier), so an agent can infer this is an actuation/positioning command. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling move_gun, leaving the agent to guess which motion tool fits.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative move_gun. The agent must infer the context entirely from the sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.