nina_guider_start

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only explains the 'calibrate' parameter but omits critical information: what happens if the guider is already running, whether it blocks, or what constitutes success/failure. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's action and parameter. It is well-structured and 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the parameter but lacks context on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. Given the simplicity, it meets a minimum viable level but could be more informative.

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 provides meaningful semantics for the only parameter 'calibrate': 'True to force a new calibration sequence, False to use existing calibration.' The schema only lists type and default, so the description adds essential context on parameter behavior.

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 'Start the autoguider loop.' The verb 'start' targets the 'autoguider loop' resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nina_guider_stop and nina_guider_info. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 instance, it does not mention prerequisites like guider being connected or whether to call nina_guider_start after calibration. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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