object_lookupQuick Messier/deep-sky hint. q is required (M31, M42, M45…). No silent default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| known | No | ||
| object | No | ||
| unknown | No | ||
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| first_skies | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / doctrineRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / first_skiesAdded value: +{
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / knownAdded value: +{
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / objectAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / provenance / properties / neverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / unknownAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'No silent default', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond annotations (ensuring the agent must supply a query). However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or output nature, though the return format is presumably covered by the output schema.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides the key input requirement. It could be slightly more informative about the return format without sacrificing brevity, but overall it is well-structured for a simple tool.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values per the guidelines), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the input requirement and gives examples. However, it lacks details on the output content (e.g., what a 'hint' includes) and error cases, which could affect an agent's ability to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'q'. The description compensates by providing example values (M31, M42, M45) and stating it is required. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, showing the expected format (Messier catalog designations). However, it does not explain whether other deep-sky object IDs (e.g., NGC) are accepted, leaving some ambiguity.
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 'Quick Messier/deep-sky hint' clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up quick information about Messier objects and deep-sky objects. It implies a verb (lookup/hint) and a specific resource category. However, it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools like 'identify' or 'nights_network', which might also involve object lookup, but the scope is narrowed to Messier/deep-sky.
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?
The description provides input format guidance ('q is required (M31, M42, M45…)') but no explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about alternative tools for similar tasks, such as 'identify' for unknown objects or 'nights_network' for broader sky info. The agent receives no 'when-not-to-use' or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.