tiangong_now

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 does not state the coordinate frame/format of the returned position, whether it is computed live or cached, update cadence, or the response shape — meaningful gaps for a live-position tool.

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 short lines: a purpose statement front-loaded, then example phrasings. No wasted text.

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 no-argument, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does but leaves the return value undescribed — the agent cannot know what fields or format come back. That is the main missing piece.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is needed by showing only natural-language example questions.

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?

States a specific verb ('returns the current position') and a specific resource (Tiangong, China's space station). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like iss_now or cnsa_status, and the example queries reinforce the scope.

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 example utterances imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives — e.g., iss_now for the ISS, or satellite_status/sat_ground_track for other orbital position queries. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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