Plan a route

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool returns route systems with security and kill data and that it can optionally mutate the in-game autopilot destination, though it does not discuss permissions or side-effect reversibility beyond the schema's scope note.

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 three tight sentences with the core purpose and return data front-loaded, followed by default behavior and the optional autopilot side effect. No sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description summarizes the return contents well enough for an agent to understand what comes back. Parameter semantics are covered by the schema, and the optional autopilot side effect is disclosed, though usage guidance remains thin.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only that origin defaults to the character's current system and that set_destination is optional, which is useful but largely duplicative of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plans a stargate route,' and details the returned data including systems, security, region, breakdown, and recent kills. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as ui_action for waypoint setting.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It mentions origin defaults and optional autopilot setting, but these are operational details rather than guidance on selecting this tool over another.

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