compute_orbital_property

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, or idempotency. However, the verb 'compute' implies a read-only operation, and the description provides useful default values (gm, r_body, angle_format). Overall, basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Well-structured with a brief intro followed by parameter list. Each line adds value. Could be slightly trimmed but remains informative without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Covers input parameters thoroughly and directs to list_orbital_computations for computation details. However, without an output schema, the description lacks information about return values, error behavior, or computational limits. This leaves a gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, units, and defaults (e.g., 'a: Semi-major axis in meters', 'state_eci: ECI state vector as comma-separated string'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 computes an orbital property using 'brahe astrodynamics functions'. It specifies the verb 'compute' and resource 'orbital property', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning available computations via list_orbital_computations(). No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly advises users to first use list_orbital_computations() to see available computations and parameters. This provides clear context on how to discover valid inputs. Does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct from sibling tools.

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