assess_dark_sky

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavioral trait ('Does not invent a site rating,' implying it interprets only supplied values), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with invalid inputs, whether the tool is a pure read/calculation, or what output format results. For a tool with no annotations, this is thin but not misleading.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The description front-loads the primary action and closes with a clarifying constraint. This is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 4 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description. With only 2 of 4 parameters referenced and no behavioral detail about how the interpretation is derived or what the return value looks like, the description is materially incomplete. A tool combining SQM, Bortle, cloud cover, and moon illumination clearly produces a composite sky-quality assessment, but the description doesn't communicate that.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for all 4 parameters, but it mentions only two (Bortle class and sky-quality/SQM). cloudCoverPercent and moonIlluminationPercent are entirely unexplained in the description, and even sqm's relationship to 'sky-quality reading' is implied rather than explicit. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Interpret a supplied Bortle class or sky-quality reading') and clarifies what it does NOT do ('Does not invent a site rating'). The purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_astronomy or validate_shoot_readiness, which could overlap in evaluating sky conditions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_astronomy, get_weather, or validate_shoot_readiness. The 'Does not invent a site rating' clause hints at a limitation but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over the astronomy or weather tools that are its likely siblings. An agent would have to infer usage context.

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