space.system

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 key behavioral details: grouping planets, summarizing host star, computing habitable zone (with explanation of method), and flagging planets. It does not mention destructive actions, auth needs, or rate limits, but these are not critical for this read-only analysis tool.

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?

The description is only two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and provides an example, while the second details the computed outputs. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool has a single input and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool does (groups planets, summarizes star, computes habitable zone, flags planets). It does not detail return format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 single parameter 'hostStar' has 100% schema coverage (description 'Host star name'), and the description adds value beyond the schema by providing a concrete example ('TRAPPIST-1') and linking it to the tool's purpose. This helps the agent understand the expected format.

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 ('profile') and resource ('confirmed exoplanetary system by host-star name') with a concrete example ('TRAPPIST-1'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'space.exoplanet' (likely for individual planets) by emphasizing system-level synthesis.

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 provides a clear usage scenario (profiling a system by host-star name) and implies when to use it over alternatives (e.g., for a full system summary vs. individual planet data). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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