skydemon_read_flightplan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the read-only, no-edit behavior and that the source is local disk, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file, bad path) or what is returned.

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?

Two short lines: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a minimal args block. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is largely sufficient: purpose, read-only guarantee, and parameter format are all covered. Only the return shape and error behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'name' is described as a file name with a concrete example ('EGKK-EGCC.flightplan') or an absolute path, which gives format and an accepted alternative that the bare schema lacks.

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 verb and resource ('Read one flightplan from disk') and scopes it to a single file, which distinguishes it from list_flightplans and list_cloud_flightplans by implication. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Read one flightplan from disk' suggests use when you already know the file, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of the cloud equivalents, and no prerequisite such as needing a known name first.

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