starlink_obstruction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what data is returned (overall obstruction percentage, current obstruction state, average duration/interval, per-wedge fractions), which is useful, but it does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, data freshness, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, and the second line elaborates with concrete output details. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a focused read-only purpose, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete with usage context relative to sibling tools, but that is already addressed by the clear scope and name.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics about what the returned obstruction data means, including the 12-direction wedge breakdown, which enriches the otherwise empty input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('obstruction data'), then enumerates the concrete outputs: fraction obstructed, 12-wedge directional map, and timing details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like starlink_status or starlink_diagnostics by focusing solely on obstruction metrics.

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 this tool should be used when obstruction-related metrics are needed, and the tool name reinforces that. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over starlink_status, starlink_diagnostics, or starlink_history, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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