jpl_nhats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only query, a data processing tool, or something else. There's no information on permissions, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is a critical omission.

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: 'Human-accessible NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) data'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. It earns a 4 for being concise, but loses a point because it under-specifies rather than being optimally informative.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return. The schema handles parameter details, but the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's operation, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 9 parameters (e.g., dv as 'Minimum total delta-V', plot as 'Include base-64 encoded plot image'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3.

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 'Human-accessible NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) data' states the general resource (NEO data) but lacks a specific verb or action. It doesn't clarify whether this tool retrieves, filters, analyzes, or visualizes NEO data, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'jpl_sbdb' or 'nasa_neo' that likely handle similar data. The purpose is vague but not tautological.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to NEOs and JPL data (e.g., jpl_sbdb, jpl_sentry, nasa_neo), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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