calculate_telescope_magnification

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states it's a calculator but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or side-effect free. There is inconsistency: mentions computing field of view but says returns only magnification and exit pupil.

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?

Relatively concise with purpose upfront. The note to list_bundles is helpful. However, the redundant 'Inputs:' line could be omitted since the schema already defines parameters.

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?

Covers the basic purpose and mentions related bundle, but lacks full alignment between description and schema (missing field of view output and extra input claim). Given the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not 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 descriptions are minimal but clear. The description adds little, and even misleads by mentioning 'eyepiece field of view' as an input, which is not a parameter. Hence, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool computes telescope magnification, exit pupil, and field of view, using a specific verb+resource. However, it incorrectly lists 'eyepiece field of view' as an input, which is not in the schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Only says 'Use for astronomy hobbyists' which is vague. No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor when not to use. Points to list_bundles but without specific comparison.

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