alpaca_rotator_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the connection requirement, but does not detail potential side effects, blocking behavior, or error conditions. The note adds useful context, yet the description remains minimal for a mutating operation.

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, with the primary action front-loaded and the critical note following. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and scannable for an agent.

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 move command with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the essential usage context (connection prerequisite) and the main action. It does not explain return values, but no output schema is expected. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 'Move an ASCOM Alpaca rotator to a specific position' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like alpaca_rotator_status (which reports status) and alpaca_rotator_halt (which stops movement). It precisely conveys the tool's function.

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 includes a clear prerequisite: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect.' This provides actionable usage context without explicitly naming alternative tools, but it adequately tells the agent when this tool can be invoked.

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