nina_dome_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get dome status'), which is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or that no special permissions are required. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure beyond the listed fields.

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 a single sentence listing the status fields. It is concise and front-loaded with 'Get dome status'. There is no fluff, but it could be structured as a bullet list for readability. Still efficient.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description lists the status fields but does not specify data types or units (e.g., azimuth in degrees, park state as boolean). For a simple info tool, this is somewhat lacking; an agent might need to infer return formats. Context signals show no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify the return structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter info. With 100% schema coverage (trivially), baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters.

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 'Get dome status' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the specific status fields (connection, shutter, azimuth, slewing, parked, dome-follows-mount). This distinguishes it from sibling dome tools like nina_dome_open and nina_dome_close.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool only reads status and does not control the dome, or that it should be used before commanding dome actions. The description is purely enumerative.

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