state_vector_to_elements

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 formatted strings and no exceptions are raised, which adds some transparency. However, it does not discuss side effects, authorized states, or any other behavioral traits beyond the return format.

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, with the purpose front-loaded. The Args and Returns sections are clearly separated, but there is a minor redundancy in stating the return type both in the first line and the Returns section. Still, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and handles a complex conversion, the description covers the basic input format and return structure. However, it omits details such as the units of the orbital elements (e.g., a in meters or km?) and what constitutes a valid state vector input (e.g., size of arrays). The error handling description is basic.

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 input schema describes 'state_vector' as an object with no explicit structure, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies it expects a dict with 'position_m' and 'velocity_ms' arrays, including units. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the required keys.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Convert state vector to classical orbital elements.' It clearly specifies the action and the output, and the sibling tool 'elements_to_state_vector' provides a direct contrast, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage in orbital mechanics contexts ('convert state vector to classical orbital elements') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or special cases.

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