alpaca_covercalibrator_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the connection prerequisite, which is a behavioral condition. However, it does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., if not connected), leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence plus a note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a relevant prerequisite. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 description explains what is returned (cover and calibrator state) and mentions the connection requirement. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not detail possible state values, return format, or error conditions. For a status tool this is adequate but could be richer.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (ip, port, device_number). The description does not add additional parameter information, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Get the status' of an ASCOM Alpaca cover calibrator, specifying it includes cover and calibrator state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpaca_covercalibrator_cover and alpaca_covercalibrator_calibrator, which likely control rather than read state.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect.' This is useful guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of alternative status tools, but the tool's purpose is well understood from the name and description.

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