alpaca_telescope_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 the prerequisite (connection required) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect free, nor does it describe error behavior or any additional constraints.

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: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second gives a prerequisite. It is front-loaded, clear, and every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists key return data (position, tracking, slewing) and warns about the connection prerequisite. For a simple status tool with three parameters, this is sufficiently complete, though it could additionally describe the structure of the returned status object.

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% for all parameters (ip, port, device_number), so the schema already explains the parameter semantics. The description adds operational context about needing connection, but does not add new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'status of an ASCOM Alpaca telescope' and lists key components (position, tracking state, slewing status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools for other devices such as alpaca_focuser_status or alpaca_dome_status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve telescope status) and includes a critical prerequisite: the device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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