alpaca_filterwheel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the connection requirement and hints at output contents, but does not explicitly state that this is a safe/read-only operation or describe error conditions. The status-getter context implies non-mutating behavior, but the description could be more explicit.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the function, the second provides a crucial prerequisite. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-only status tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate. It specifies the key output elements (current position and available filters) and the connection prerequisite. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the main return fields, though more detail on error cases or return format would improve completeness.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (ip, port, device_number), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already covers, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ASCOM Alpaca filter wheel'), and further clarifies the scope by listing 'current position and available filters.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools for other devices.

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 clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the device-specific nature of the tool makes its use case obvious.

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