space.sky-tonight

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that computation is local ('no upstream'), which is a behavioral trait. Mentions output details (rise/set, alt/az, phase) but could add more on accuracy or limits.

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?

Description is concise (single long sentence with list and keywords), but slightly dense. No front-loading issue; each part adds value. Could be more structured for readability.

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?

No output schema, so description must cover return values. It lists key outputs (sun/moon, planets) with some fields (alt/az, magnitude). Lacks detail on optional params and default behavior, but generally complete for intended use.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters (lat, lon, altitudeM, at) with 0% description coverage. Description only hints at lat/lon and time, missing altitudeM and 'at' format details. Does not adequately explain parameter meaning or units.

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?

Description clearly states it computes observer-local sky almanac for given lat/lon and time, listing specific outputs (sun/moon, planets) and use cases (stargazing, astrophotography). Distinguishes from sibling space tools by specifying 'computed, no upstream' and focusing on local almanac.

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?

Describes what it does and when to use (general sky almanac), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Agent can infer, but lack of exclusion guidance lowers score.

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