alpaca_dome_shutter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and connection prerequisite but does not disclose whether the operation blocks, returns immediately, handles errors, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a necessary prerequisite note. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool is simple with a well-covered schema, and the description provides purpose and prerequisite. However, it lacks behavioral details like return behavior or error handling, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% and all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the 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 the tool opens or closes an ASCOM Alpaca dome shutter with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpaca_dome_status (status) and alpaca_dome_slew (slewing), as well as open_roof/close_roof which target a different structure.

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 implies when to use the tool (to open/close the dome shutter) and provides a prerequisite (device must be connected first via alpaca_device_connect). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it only partially covers usage guidance.

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