alpaca_focuser_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the connection prerequisite but does not disclose whether the command blocks until movement completes, what errors occur if not connected, or what the return value means. This is minimal but useful context.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 command with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical prerequisite. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but those are not explicitly needed given the tool's simplicity and the richness of the schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (ip, port, position, device_number). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 action ('Move an ASCOM Alpaca focuser to a specific position') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alpaca_focuser_status (read-only) and alpaca_focuser_halt (stop movement).

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') which is important usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives like alpaca_focuser_halt for stopping.

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