get_site_equipment_status

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

The description discloses that it is read-only and takes no action, which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately covers the safety and side-effect profile.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary function, then adds usage and behavioral notes, each earning its place.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are defined there. The description explains the purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints, and mentions specific capabilities like can_park and can_find_home, making it complete for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with 0 parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool returns current connection, operating state, measurements, and capabilities of observatory equipment, with specific examples like weather, safety-monitor status, and mount capabilities. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_site_profile and get_events by focusing on live 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?

It explicitly states 'Use it for live operational and safety checks,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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