space.sky-tonight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool computes data locally (no upstream) and lists all outputs, giving a good sense of behavior. However, it could explicitly state it is a read-only, idempotent calculation.

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 efficient, using three sentences to convey purpose and outputs. It front-loads the key concept but could be slightly more structured, e.g., separating input requirements from output details.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately details the computed results (sun/moon, planets, etc.). It does not cover error handling or input constraints, but provides sufficient information to select and use the tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning by referencing lat/lon and time, but it does not clarify the role of altitudeM or the 'at' parameter. It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but not fully.

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 it is an 'Observer-local sky almanac' and lists specific computed outputs (sun/moon rise/set, alt/az, moon phase, planets). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like space.skywatch and space.observe.

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 implies usage for stargazing and astrophotography, and notes the computation is local with no upstream, but it does not explicitly provide when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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