nina_dome_slew

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It does not specify if the slew is blocking, whether it waits for completion, or if it requires the dome to be open/connected.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the purpose, second explains the parameter with key details. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., dome connection status) and behavior (blocking vs. non-blocking). It does not mention error handling for out-of-range azimuth.

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 description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: units (degrees), valid range (0.0 to 360.0), and cardinal direction mapping (North=0, East=90). The schema itself has no description for the azimuth parameter (0% coverage), so the description compensates well.

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 action ('slew the dome') and the resource ('dome'), with a specific parameter (azimuth). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nina_dome_close or nina_dome_open.

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, such as prerequisites (e.g., dome must be connected/open) or when not to use it (e.g., if dome is already tracking).

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