alpaca_safetymonitor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('get') and adds the connection prerequisite, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or what constitutes 'status', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. The prerequisite note is directly relevant and concise.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema documents all parameters, but with no output schema, the description could usefully hint at what the status contains (e.g., safe/unsafe states). The prerequisite is helpful, but return value semantics are not addressed, leaving a gap for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 action ('Get the status') and the specific resource ('ASCOM Alpaca safety monitor'), distinguishing it from sibling status tools for other device types. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 note 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect' provides clear context and a prerequisite for usage, which is valuable. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that the agent can infer when to use it (e.g., for safety monitor status queries).

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