plot_gabbard_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that each GP record becomes a point on the diagram, but does not mention side effects, permissions, computational cost, or the output type. The existence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description could be more transparent about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only necessary information. Each sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirements and usage context. It does not detail the output format, but the presence of an output schema likely fulfills that role. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'gp_records' parameter as 'List of GP record dicts from celestrak/spacetrack tools' and specifying units for altitude and period. It also documents the optional title parameter. This provides meaningful guidance for parameter selection.

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 that the tool plots a Gabbard diagram (apogee/perigee altitude vs orbital period) and explains its utility for visualizing debris clouds or constellation distributions. It distinguishes itself from sibling plotting tools by specifying the exact type of diagram.

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 a clear use case ('useful for visualizing debris clouds or constellation distributions') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives. The context is sufficient for an informed agent, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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