mil_aircraft

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose without mentioning data sources, update frequency, rate limits, or limitations (e.g., geographical coverage, reliance on ADS-B). Critical behavioral context is missing for a tool returning live data.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 complexity of live military aircraft tracking and the absence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of aircraft, positions, timestamps) or how the bounding box filtering works in practice. For a data-fetching tool, this completeness is insufficient.

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% coverage, with each parameter descriptively labeled (e.g., 'East longitude'). The tool description adds the bounding box concept but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema. The description is adequate but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('track live military aircraft'), the spatial context ('bounding box'), and the method ('filtering ICAO24 hex ranges assigned to military operators'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'aircraft_live' and 'mil_activity' by specifying its unique focus on military aircraft via ICAO hex ranges.

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 for tracking military aircraft within a bounding box but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'aircraft_military' or 'aircraft_live'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use cases are mentioned, making it adequate but lacking clear differentiation.

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