alpaca_focuser_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 a key behavioral requirement (device must be connected) and implies read-only operation. It does not mention return format, error conditions, or side effects, but for a status getter this is minimal.

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 with no filler. It states the purpose and the one critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't mention what the returned data structure looks like, possible error cases, or whether device_number applies to multiple focusers. With no output schema and no annotations, more detail would help, but the tool is relatively straightforward.

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%, with all three parameters (ip, port, device_number) already described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action ('Get the status') and the resource ('ASCOM Alpaca focuser'), and enumerates specific data points (position, temperature, movement state). It is specific enough to differentiate from other status tools like alpaca_telescope_status, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect'), which is helpful context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_device_status or other alpaca_*_status tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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