get_site_profile

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and takes no action, which is valuable behavioral disclosure. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so by clarifying the non-mutating nature and that it returns static configuration rather than live state.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and content, and the second sentence provides the sibling distinction and safety profile. Every sentence earns 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 description is complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool. It names the sibling for live state, lists the content returned, and states the read-only nature. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described in prose. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether the profile is cached or freshly fetched, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the returned profile contains, which is more useful than parameter documentation in this case. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 the active NINA observatory profile and static configuration, listing specific content areas (site location, optics, camera geometry, filters, plate solvers, image-save path). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_site_equipment_status by noting that tool is for live equipment state.

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 explicitly names the alternative get_site_equipment for live equipment state, providing a clear when-to-use distinction. It doesn't exhaustively enumerate all alternatives or exclusions, but the key sibling differentiation is present.

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