rocket_3dof_trajectory

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it uses RK4 integration, explains the equations of motion, handles errors by returning formatted strings (no exceptions), and depends on rocketry packages. This exceeds typical expectations.

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-organized (Args, Returns, Raises, Note) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the equations section is verbose; some repetition could be trimmed. Still, it is efficiently structured for clarity.

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 explains the output (formatted string with key results) and the physics, but lacks detailed input guidance for the two required complex objects. Given the tool's complexity and minimal schema, more input context is needed for complete usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only provides vague labels like 'Rocket geometry parameters' and one example ('launch_angle_deg, launch_site, etc.'). It does not list expected keys, types, or constraints, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool calculates a 3DOF rocket trajectory using numerical integration. It specifies the resource (rocket trajectory) and the method (numerical integration), distinguishing it from siblings like trajectory_sensitivity_analysis or optimize_launch_angle.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative trajectory tools. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to other tools like trajectory_sensitivity_analysis.

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