jpl_horizons_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'File Input' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., does it generate a downloadable file, require file uploads, or output file-like data?). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format implications beyond the 'format' parameter. The description is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations.

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 a single, efficient phrase that states the core function. It's front-loaded with the key information (JPL Horizons ephemeris data). However, it could be more structured by clarifying 'File Input' to improve usefulness without adding unnecessary length.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (like file handling), usage context, or how results are returned. For a data retrieval tool with many configuration options, more guidance on output expectations and tool behavior is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., COMMAND specifies target objects, EPHEM_TYPE lists types). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's general purpose. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 states the tool provides 'Solar system objects ephemeris data (File Input)', which indicates it retrieves positional/observational data for celestial bodies. However, it's vague about what 'File Input' means specifically and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'jpl_horizons' (without 'file' in name). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the file aspect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'jpl_horizons' (likely a similar tool without file input), there's no indication of when this file-based version is preferred or what distinguishes it. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is mentioned.

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