alpaca_rotator_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions the prerequisite connection, but does not disclose error behavior, return format details, or other side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded with purpose and specifics, and contains no fluff. It effectively communicates the core information in a minimal structure.

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 getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and prerequisite. It mentions key return fields ('position and movement state'), which provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A bit more detail on return structure would be helpful, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (ip, port, device_number) are described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ASCOM Alpaca rotator'), and details what it returns ('position and movement state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools by naming 'rotator'.

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 prerequisite note: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect.' This gives clear context for when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The prerequisite is valuable guidance for an agent.

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