alpaca_telescope_park

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only notes the connection prerequisite, but fails to mention that this is a mutating operation that changes telescope state, potential side effects, or how completion is signaled. This is a significant gap for a write-like command.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second provides a necessary prerequisite. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the caller can expect upon completion (e.g., success indicator or error behavior). This leaves some ambiguity for a mutating operation.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'action' enum and default for 'device_number'. The description adds no additional parameter details, 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 action ('Park or unpark') and the resource ('ASCOM Alpaca telescope'), which is specific and distinct from sibling telescope commands like slew, tracking, or abort.

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 clear prerequisite ('Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect'), giving useful context on when it can be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the prerequisite guides usage.

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