Axis details

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden: it discloses the result shape (field listing) and the important default that omitting the argument returns all axes plus general notes rather than erroring. Read-only intent is strongly implied by 'returns' and the lookup framing, but not stated outright nor are any limits mentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact list of covered components, then the default behavior in a single sentence. No padding, though the middle list is a dense run-on that could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back — it does so by enumerating the component categories and noting general notes are included when no axis is given. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is essentially complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by listing the accepted axis identifiers and clarifying the optional semantics (omitted → all axes), and it spells 'abrasive feeder' more fully than the schema's enum-like hint.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Everything about one axis of the cutting table') and enumerates the exact contents (drive model, CAN address, motor, feedback, switches, valves, connectors, terminal strips, schematic sheets). This is distinctive next to siblings like get_drive_parameters or find_component, so an agent can route correctly.

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 names the valid axes and the no-argument behavior ('returns all axes plus general notes'), which gives clear usage context. It never mentions exclusions or a sibling alternative (e.g. get_drive_parameters for pure parameter lookups), so it falls just short of a 5.

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