plate_solve

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation requires internet access for Gaia/VizieR, seeds values from FITS keywords, and modifies metadata non-destructively. This gives an agent important behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance, external dependency, and side-effect profile. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and partial schema coverage, the description is not fully complete. It covers the main purpose, dependencies, and side effects, but omits the meaning of several parameters (force, magnitude, distortion_correction) and gives no sense of failure modes or return behavior.

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 50%, and the description adds meaningful context for ra, dec, focal_length, and pixel_size by explaining they are seeded from FITS keywords and only need to be passed when headers lack them. However, force, magnitude, and distortion_correction remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a clear semantic gap.

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 identifies the tool as an 'ImageSolver astrometric solution' and connects it to downstream consumers (SPCC/PCC and annotate), making its function clear. It lacks a strong imperative verb like 'Computes' or 'Solves', but the resource and role are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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 states that the solution is needed by SPCC/PCC and annotate, implying it should be run before those steps. It also gives actionable guidance: pass RA/DEC/focal/pixel size if FITS headers lack them. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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