nina_mount_slew

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes key behaviors: plate-solving for centering, rotation and re-centering, blocking vs non-blocking. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., mount must be unparked, camera for centering).

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 and well-structured: a single-line purpose followed by bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains control flow and parameter effects. It lacks specifics on return data structure (e.g., success/failure details) but covers essential behavioral outcomes.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: units for ra (hours vs degrees), range for dec, meaning of booleans (center, rotate, wait_for_result), and conditional usage of rotation_angle.

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 'Slew the mount to J2000 RA/Dec coordinates,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nina_mount_home or nina_mount_park by focusing on coordinate-based slewing.

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 the behavior of optional parameters (center, rotate, wait_for_result) and when to use them. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides clear context for parameter usage.

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