listCelestialObjects

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 that objects are 'grouped by category' and can be filtered, but doesn't describe output format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 concise with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, functionality, and utility. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Lists available celestial objects') and avoids redundancy. However, the last sentence ('This tool helps in discovering...') could be considered slightly verbose, as it restates the purpose rather than adding new information.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering, but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for agent 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single optional parameter 'category' with valid values and default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying filtering capability without providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Lists available celestial objects that can be queried by other tools' and 'Objects are grouped by category.' It specifies the verb (lists) and resource (celestial objects) with additional context about grouping. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCelestialDetails or getStarHoppingPath, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage by stating 'This tool helps in discovering what objects are known to the system' and mentions filtering by category, suggesting it's for discovery purposes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCelestialDetails (which likely provides detailed info) or getStarHoppingPath (which might involve navigation). No exclusions or clear alternatives are named.

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