nina_focuser_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states it 'gets' status and lists returned fields, indicating a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., focuser connection) or error cases.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get focuser status') and lists all relevant attributes. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lists the returned attributes, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. However, it lacks type information or formatting details, which could be useful for parsing the response.

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 does not need to add parameter meaning. It is complete in this regard.

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 focuser status' and lists specific attributes (connection state, step position, temperature, moving state, compensation state), making the purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling focuser tools like nina_focuser_move and nina_focuser_stop.

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?

Usage is implied as a read-only status check, but the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to check before moving focuser). No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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