get_all_passes

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 discloses that the tool is read-only in nature and returns schedule information, but does not describe the return format, time fields, or any error behavior. For a simple no-parameter getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 clear, concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, and the follow-up sentence reinforces the scope and output type.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough high-level information about what the tool returns (complete schedule of all passes) for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention returned fields, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to explain, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving information about all satellite passes in the scenario, specifying the complete schedule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_next_pass, which targets a single pass.

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 conveys a clear usage context: obtaining the full pass schedule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the plural 'all passes' and 'complete schedule' signal when this tool is appropriate relative to the singular get_next_pass.

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