getStarHoppingPath

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the calculation process and FOV constraint, but lacks details on what the output looks like (e.g., path format, error handling), computational requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but not what it returns, how errors are handled, or practical considerations for use. Without annotations or output schema, users lack critical context about the tool's behavior and results.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how FOV interacts with hop selection) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: calculating a star hopping path from a bright start star to a target celestial object, with hops constrained by Field of View. It specifies the verb ('calculates'), resource ('star hopping path'), and key constraint ('within the specified Field of View'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCelestialDetails' or 'listCelestialObjects', which likely provide different astronomical data rather than navigation paths.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or other contexts where star hopping might be preferred over direct object lookup. Usage is implied (e.g., for astronomical navigation when equipment FOV is limited), but no explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are stated.

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