estimate_rocket_sizing

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of the ideal rocket equation, states that no exceptions are raised directly (errors are returned as strings), and describes the calculation methodology. It could mention that the tool is read-only, but overall it is transparent.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises, and Note sections. The inclusion of the full Tsiolkovsky equation adds value but slightly increases length. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (four parameters, physics-based calculation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs, output format, and methodology. It lacks explicit constraints (e.g., positive values) but is otherwise complete.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section provides explicit meanings for all four parameters, including defaults for propellant_type and design_margin. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 begins with 'Estimate rocket sizing requirements for target altitude and payload,' clearly stating the verb (estimate), resource (rocket sizing), and input conditions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rocket_3dof_trajectory or optimize_launch_angle by focusing on mass and dimension estimation.

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 provides the governing equation (Tsiolkovsky) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this simplified model versus alternatives like trajectory simulation. It lacks when-not-to-use advice or comparisons with sibling tools.

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