Render a panel grid of the same sky field across radio, optical, IR, X-ray, and gamma-ray surveys, showing empty panels with reasons where coverage is missing.
Panel grid of the same field in several surveys (radio, optical, IR, X-ray, gamma-ray). Surveys that do not cover the position are shown as empty panels with the reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | ||
| l | No | ||
| ra | No | ||
| dec | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| surveys | No | ||
| overlays | No | ||
| fov_arcmin | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior — missing coverage yields empty panels with a stated reason — which is real value. It omits other essentials: how the target position is resolved, what the tool returns (image vs. URL), and whether surveys or overlays affect output size.
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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the output shape comes first and the edge case second. It is efficiently written, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the operational detail an 8-parameter tool needs.
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?
For a tool with 8 optional parameters, zero required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never says that a position must be supplied via name, ra/dec, or b/l, nor what the caller receives back, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so all semantics must come from the description, and it supplies almost none. 'The position' hints at the ra/dec/b/l/name family but never explains the alternatives or their formats, and fov_arcmin, overlays, and per-survey selection go unmentioned.
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?
States a specific verb and output artifact ('panel grid of the same field') across named wavelengths, which tells an agent what it produces. It does not differentiate from plausible siblings such as render_cutout or plot_galactic_map, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can deduce it is for multi-survey comparison of one position. There is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative (e.g. render_cutout for a single survey), and no stated prerequisites such as required coordinates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.