annotateRender an annotated JPEG of a plate-solved view, labeling Messier/NGC objects, named stars, constellations, and grid lines to confirm your imaging target. Non-destructive.
Render an annotated JPEG (Messier/NGC/named stars/constellations/grid) of a plate-solved view to confirm the target. Non-destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| layers | No | ||
| max_edge | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the non-destructive label plus the plate-solved prerequisite and JPEG output format. It does not describe what happens with unsolved inputs or output delivery, but the annotation profile covers the key safety concerns.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful context about the operation, content, and safety.
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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: the meaning of max_edge, the available layer strings, and the format or location of the rendered JPEG are not specified. The purpose is clear, but an agent cannot fully determine call semantics.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining id, layers, and max_edge. It only hints at possible layer values by listing annotation types, leaving id and max_edge effectively unexplained.
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 specifies a verb ('Render'), resource ('annotated JPEG'), content types ('Messier/NGC/named stars/constellations/grid'), and purpose ('to confirm the target'). It is distinguishable from generic preview tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.
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 phrase 'to confirm the target' offers an implied use case after plate solving, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose annotate over render_preview or compare_previews, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.