lambert_problem_solver

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 discloses that errors are returned as JSON strings and no exceptions are raised directly, but it does not mention any behavioral traits like computational cost, required authority, or side effects. The description adds minimal transparency beyond stating what the tool computes.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, an Args section, and brief Returns and Raises sections. It efficiently conveys the necessary information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 covers parameters and return values adequately given the presence of an output schema. However, it omits important contextual details such as the coordinate frame for position vectors (e.g., ECI) or a list of valid central_body names, which could lead to ambiguity for users unfamiliar with astrodynamics conventions.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides clear, informative descriptions for each parameter: units for vectors and time, explanation of direction and revolutions, and a note on central_body. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 identifies the tool as solving Lambert's orbital boundary value problem, specifying the inputs (two position vectors and time-of-flight) and the output (orbit connecting them). It also mentions its application in interplanetary mission design and rendezvous planning, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hohmann_transfer or orbital_rendezvous_planning.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hohmann_transfer or porkchop_plot_analysis. It states the general purpose but lacks explicit context for when to choose this tool, nor does it mention situations where it should not be used.

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