plot_ground_track_from_gp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool plots but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it displays or saves the plot), authorization needs, or other traits. This leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief explanation of the wrapper, then a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (8 parameters, 3 required, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description explains all parameters adequately. However, it omits details about prerequisites (e.g., network for GP records) or error handling, which would enhance completeness.

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 includes an Args section that thoroughly explains each parameter with types, defaults, and context (e.g., 'GP record dict from celestrak/spacetrack tools'). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 satellite ground track from a GP record' and identifies it as a convenience wrapper that delegates to plot_ground_track(). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'plot_ground_track' which may require a satellite spec directly.

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 when a GP record is available (e.g., from celestrak/spacetrack tools) by mentioning it's a wrapper for those inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'plot_ground_track', so it lacks exclusions.

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