get_aircraft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is a read ('Get'), scoped to current public state, but it does not disclose response contents, staleness, error behavior, or any access caveats beyond 'public.'

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 one sentence with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes.

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 tool this is close to adequate, but 'state' is left vague and there is no output schema to explain the return value. It also doesn't mention the sibling alternatives, so the description leaves some context missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by identifying the lone parameter as an ICAO hex aircraft identifier, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw hex pattern in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Get,' names the resource, 'current public state for one ICAO hex aircraft,' and clearly scopes the operation to a single aircraft. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which concern nearby aircraft and network stats.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent has a specific ICAO hex and wants its current public state. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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