discover_alpaca_devices

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: discovery via UDP broadcast. It also states that it returns a list of equipment types. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, timeout behavior beyond the schema default, or any network requirements, which would further enhance transparency given no annotations are provided.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose, method, and expected result. Every part adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the discovery mechanism and the categories of returned devices. A minor gap is not describing the return structure (e.g., whether it returns IP addresses or device IDs), but the included device type list helps the agent understand the output scope.

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 only parameter, timeout, is already fully described in the schema as 'Discovery timeout in milliseconds (default: 5000).' The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb 'Discover' and identifies the resource as 'ASCOM Alpaca devices on the local network via UDP broadcast.' It clearly scopes the tool to Alpaca-compatible equipment and lists example device types, distinguishing it from more generic discovery tools like discover_devices.

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 implies when to use this tool: when needing to find Alpaca-compatible astronomy equipment on the local network via UDP. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as discover_devices or locate_device.

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