get_constellation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the responsibility. It discloses the tool is a read operation returning altitude, azimuth, and metadata. It does not mention edge cases or error handling, but the return structure is clearly stated and aligns with typical query tools.

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 concise with a clear Purpose line, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is well front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers inputs and output adequately. It lacks guidance on default values or error scenarios, but the output schema presumably fills in return details. Sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description defines all 5 parameters with examples (e.g., 'Orion', degrees format, ISO time, IANA timezone). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool retrieves the position (altitude/azimuth) of a constellation center. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'position', distinguishing it from siblings like get_celestial_pos or list_visible_planets which target different celestial objects or properties.

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 explains inputs and output but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_celestial_pos or get_celestial_rise_set. Usage is implied by the constellation-specific focus, but no conditions 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.