runGmat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool runs 'headless' and returns a validated outcome, implying no persistent side effects. However, it does not explicitly disclose safety, resource usage, or whether the script modifies system state, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output shape, then clarifies the usage pattern and stage values. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return structure ({ok, stage, errors, reports, raw_tail}) and defines the possible stage values. This covers the essential information for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. The tool is moderately complex with two parameters, and the description is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to increase timeout for 'multi-day low-thrust propagations', which is useful guidance beyond the schema's default value description.

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 the verb 'Run' and the resource 'GMAT mission script (text)', and explains the outcome as a validated result with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getGmatIdioms or listGmatSamples by focusing on execution.

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 explicitly frames the tool as part of a validation loop ('write, run, read, fix, repeat'), which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives beyond the implied purpose.

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