vehicle_profile

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the profile is *inferred* from the log rather than measured, and hover throttle / power margin is flagged as the key derived insight, warning the agent these are estimates to be combined with user-supplied physical facts. It stops short of stating accuracy limits or which log conditions degrade the inference.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the enumerated contents. The parenthetical 'the key physical insight' is slightly editorial but earns its place by signaling which output matters most; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter read-only tool the description is nearly complete; the only real hole is the unexplained 'path' parameter.

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?

There is a single required 'path' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the path points to, its accepted format, or expected file types. The phrase 'inferred from the log' weakly implies it is a log file path, which is minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific resource (physical/architecture profile of the aircraft) and enumerates the concrete outputs it produces: frame class/type, motor count, battery cells/capacity, hover throttle, power margin, thrust-to-weight. That content footprint is distinct enough from siblings like log_summary or get_params that an agent can route correctly, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a usage context ('use this to reason about the craft physically and to combine with real-world details the user gives'), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names an alternative (e.g. get_params for raw parameter values), so selection among siblings still requires inference.

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