arm_motion

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

Discloses key behaviors: validates limits, returns one-time use confirm_token, operator must pass token, Claude cannot generate it. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well, though it could mention failure modes or token format.

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 plus a list. Every sentence adds value: purpose, token behavior, and action-parameter mapping. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, token lifecycle, action mapping, and operator role. Missing minor details like error handling, but for a validation step, it is sufficiently complete to guide an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents each action's expected params (e.g., jog {dx,dy}, set_paper_origin {x,y}). This compensates completely for the schema's lack of detail.

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 this is Step 1 of any movement, validates limits, and returns a unique confirm_token. It lists the actions (jog, set_paper_origin, etc.) that can be used, distinguishing it from sibling execution tools like jog or production_run.

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?

Explicitly says it is the first step before any movement, that the operator passes the token to the execution tool, and that Claude must not generate or guess the token. It lists the valid actions and their expected params, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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