jpl_scout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the response format looks like (especially given no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a data retrieval tool with multiple options like file types and plots, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'file' interacts with 'plot' or 'summary'), nor does it provide examples or contextual usage for parameters like 'tdes'.

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: to retrieve NEOCP orbits, ephemerides, and impact risk data. It specifies the verb ('Scout') and resource types, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jpl_sentry or nasa_neo, which might also handle asteroid/impact data.

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 sibling tools like jpl_sentry (impact risk monitoring) and nasa_neo (near-Earth object data), there is no indication of when jpl_scout is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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