alpaca_telescope_abort

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 the connection prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error behavior when no slew is in progress, or whether the action is idempotent. Given the absence of annotations, more detail about expected behavior would be valuable.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the connection note is a meaningful addition. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and a key prerequisite. It could improve by indicating what happens if no slew is in progress or mentioning potential error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for straightforward invocation.

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 tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Abort any slew in progress'), the resource ('ASCOM Alpaca telescope'), and the scope ('any slew in progress'). It distinguishes this from siblings like alpaca_telescope_slew and alpaca_telescope_park by focusing on aborting an in-progress movement.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use when a slew is in progress and you want to stop it. The note about needing to connect the device first provides a tangible prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using alpaca_camera_abort for camera operations), but the tool name and description make the appropriate situation clear.

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