Check an authored synthetic celestial system for ill-defined inputs: duplicate body ids, non-positive periods, out-of-range eccentricity, or a dangling observer. Returns impossible and a list of problems — the same honesty pattern as compileForm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| system | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool checks for ill-defined inputs and returns a list of problems, implying it is a read-only validation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, mention authentication needs, or describe error handling beyond 'impossible'.
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: the first states the purpose and checks, the second describes the return format. Both are front-loaded and contain no filler. Every word 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?
With a complex input schema and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It mentions returning 'impossible' and a list of problems, but does not specify the output structure (e.g., types of problems, format). The reference to 'compileForm' introduces unfamiliar context. The listed checks are helpful but leave out details on what constitutes a 'dangling observer'.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the validations performed (duplicate ids, periods, eccentricity, observer), which adds semantic context for the 'system' parameter. However, it does not explain the structure or constraints of the input schema beyond the listed checks.
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's purpose: validating a synthetic celestial system. It lists specific checks (duplicate body ids, non-positive periods, etc.) and mentions the return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like synthetic_positions or synthetic_sky_view, which deal with computations and views.
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 implies usage before other synthetic operations (e.g., 'the same honesty pattern as compileForm'), but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context of siblings suggests this is the validation step. Lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
