starlink_status

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 discloses that the tool returns a compact summary and lists included fields, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, has no side effects, or mention any limitations such as data freshness or error conditions. The 'Get' wording implies a read operation, but more behavioral clarity would be helpful.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second details the output fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a parameterless status-read tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the current-status scope and the key returned data categories. It does not elaborate on how this differs from related diagnostics tools, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than a contextual completeness failure.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed, and the empty input schema confirms this.

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 and resource ('Get current dish status') and enumerates the content areas: identity, connectivity, signal quality, orientation, and uptime. It clearly describes what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling starlink_diagnostics tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as starlink_diagnostics, starlink_history, or starlink_alerts. The intended usage can be inferred from the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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