get_situation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses payload composition, relative cost, and the tradeoff between detail modes. It omits data freshness/latency and any auth or rate-limit context, which prevents a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line orientation statement, followed by a compact content inventory and a detail-mode note. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 single-optional-parameter overview tool with an output schema present, the description supplies purpose, contents, cost, and the detail-mode semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema lists no enum for 'detail' (just a string defaulting to 'short'). The description supplies the only source of allowed values ('short'/'long') and explains what each does to the jamming/vessel/alert samples, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 resource and role: 'Global situational snapshot — the cheap first call to orient,' then enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains (aircraft totals, GNSS-degraded count, squawks, jamming cells, vessels, fusion alerts). It implicitly differentiates itself from siblings like intel_brief or whats_changed by casting itself as the orienting overview, though it never names an alternative.

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 cheap first call to orient' gives clear when-to-use context and the 'a few hundred tokens' framing establishes the cost tradeoff. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names a sibling (e.g., focus_area, whats_changed) for deeper drill-down, so routing relies on inference.

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