alpaca_dome_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the important connection requirement, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe what happens if the device is not connected, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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: the main purpose statement and a note about the prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every word contributes 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?

For a status retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is fairly complete. It specifies the purpose, the key status elements (shutter state, position, slewing status), and the connection prerequisite. It does not mention error handling or return format, but these are less critical for a read-only status tool.

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?

All three parameters (ip, port, device_number) have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional information about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('status of an ASCOM Alpaca dome'). Listing shutter state, position, and slewing status clearly differentiates this tool from sibling status tools like alpaca_focuser_status or alpaca_telescope_status.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect.' This gives the agent clear context for when to use this tool (after connection). However, it does not mention alternatives or cases where a different tool would be more appropriate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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