process_seestar_mosaic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (automatically creating required SSF script files in the project directory) and clarifies the processing scope. It doesn't mention external dependencies like Siril being installed or whether files might be overwritten, but the core behavioral traits are well described.

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 states the action, input, and output; the second removes a likely user concern (manually downloading scripts). The information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 covers the essential context: input directory, processing action, output concept, and a major convenience. An output schema exists, so return details don't need explaining. However, given sibling tools like find_siril_binary and validate_siril_binary, the description could have mentioned prerequisites or ordering, so it's not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that project_dir must contain a 'lights/' subdir, matching the schema. It does not add further meaning to filter_type beyond what the schema already provides via its enum and per-value descriptions, so no higher score is warranted.

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 ('Runs'), a clear resource ('the appropriate Siril .ssf mosaic script on all FIT(S) in project_dir/lights'), and states the outcome ('stacking them into a mosaic'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it auto-creates the SSF scripts, so users don't need to download them separately.

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 gives clear context: it processes all FIT(S) in project_dir/lights and auto-creates script files. It implicitly advises against a separate manual download step, which distinguishes it from the sibling download_latest_ssf_scripts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like running check_project_structure first.

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