plot_orbit_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that it uses 'brahe's plot_keplerian_trajectory' and shows element evolution, but it does not mention whether the plot is returned as an image, saved to a file, or displayed. It also omits side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a plotting tool, the output format is a critical behavioral detail.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose in the first line, then uses an 'Args:' block to clearly document parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain what the tool returns—whether it outputs a plot image, a file path, or an in-memory object. For a plotting tool, this is a significant gap. The description should clarify the return type and how the plot is presented (e.g., base64 PNG).

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'satellite' follows the same format as in 'compute_access', that epochs are ISO strings, and that 'step_seconds' defaults to 60. This helps the agent understand parameter types and defaults. However, it does not fully describe the 'satellite' object structure, relying on cross-reference.

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 Keplerian orbital element evolution over a propagation arc' and specifies it shows changes of the 6 classical elements over time. This provides a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'plot_orbit_elements_from_gp', which could create confusion about which to use.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plot_altitude' or 'plot_orbit_elements_from_gp'. The description lacks explicit when/when-not conditions or selection criteria, forcing the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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