alpaca_switch_status

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 notes the connection prerequisite, which is helpful, and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get.' However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of switch states), potential errors if not connected, or other side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the important prerequisite clearly appended. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 straightforward status-read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate high-level context: what it does and the key precondition. It does not detail the return structure, but this is not critical for a simple status check, and sibling tools imply a common pattern for status endpoints.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (ip, port, device_number), so the schema already explains parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Get the status of all switches on an ASCOM Alpaca switch device.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('all switches'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like alpaca_switch_set (which changes states) and other status tools by explicitly mentioning 'switch device.'

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 crucial usage prerequisite: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect.' This provides clear context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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