flight_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the semantically rich output content (the event classes it aggregates), which is genuine behavioral value, but it says nothing about read-only nature, cost, ordering guarantees beyond 'in order', or whether events are truncated by the default limit.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the high-value framing ('everything that changed, in order') is front-loaded before the category list. Dense but efficient; nothing needs pruning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description adequately frames the content. However, for a diagnostic tool sitting among many overlapping log-analysis siblings, the absence of any usage routing or parameter context leaves the agent without enough to choose it confidently.

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 only 50%: the 'log' parameter is richly documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the documented gap around 'limit' semantics (default 120) or the 'latest-N' log selector.

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 names the resource (flight-log events) and enumerates the exact content categories produced — modes/arming, commands and acks, failsafe flags, takeoff/landing, estimator validity, warnings — so an agent knows precisely what data it yields. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like log_messages or estimator_health, which overlap in subject matter.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus log_messages, scan_logs, or estimator_health, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The boundary with overlapping siblings (a timeline of estimator validity vs the estimator_health tool) is left entirely to inference.

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