hohmann_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the calculation itself. It lacks information on side effects, resource usage, or error handling behavior beyond a brief note on error returns.

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 follows a clear docstring format with Args, Returns, Raises, and a Note. It is well-structured but includes detailed formulas, which while informative, add length. It could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

The description mentions that the tool returns a JSON string with specific parameters (delta-V, semi-major axis, time of flight) and notes error handling. Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (two parameters), the description is reasonably 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?

The description fully explains the two parameters (r1_m and r2_m) as initial and final orbit radii in meters, and provides the underlying formulas. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 'Calculate Hohmann transfer orbit parameters between two circular orbits,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'orbital_rendezvous_planning' by focusing on the specific Hohmann transfer method.

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 explains when to use the tool via the note on Hohmann transfer being the minimum-energy two-impulse transfer between coplanar circular orbits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, slightly limiting guidance.

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