plot_access_geometry_from_gp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the tool as a plotting wrapper that delegates, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not specify if the plot is displayed, saved, or requires network, nor does it mention side effects like state changes. Adequate but lacking explicit details.

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 a clear summary line followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded and easy to scan. No wasted 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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the purpose, all parameters with defaults, and the wrapper functionality. It lacks details on constraints structure and output behavior, but overall it is fairly complete for a plotting tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'location: Ground location dict with lon, lat, optional altitude_m/name'). However, for parameters like 'constraints', it is vague ('List of constraint spec dicts') without specifying the expected keys, leaving some 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 'Plot access geometry from a GP record' and explains it is a convenience wrapper that delegates to plot_access_geometry(). This distinguishes it from siblings like compute_access_from_gp (compute vs plot) and plot_access_geometry (takes satellite spec instead of GP record).

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 indicates this tool is for plotting when you have a GP record from celestrak/spacetrack tools, serving as a convenience wrapper. While it implies when to use, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context and sibling names provide enough guidance.

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