can_i_fly

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recursive skill tree, ordered training plan, total skillpoints, estimated time, and the logged-in diff behavior. This exceeds minimal expectations but does not mention potential error conditions or whether login is required.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a question that frames the purpose and immediately lists the outputs. No redundant wording 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 single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned (recursive tree, training plan, skillpoints, time) and the conditional diff. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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% with a clear description of item_name ('Exact ship or module name'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: returns skill prerequisites and training plan for a given ship or module. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fit_readiness or skill_queue by focusing on the item-to-skill requirement relationship.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (checking what is needed to fly/use an item) and mentions the conditional diff against a logged-in character. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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