Get Aircraft Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that all variables across chosen sections are read in a single batched call, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose other traits like potential response size limits or rate implications. The added value over annotations is moderate.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the purpose is stated, then examples, then the batched-call note. No fluff or redundancy.

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 snapshot tool with an output schema (indicated by has output schema: true), the description covers how to invoke it and why one might narrow sections. It lacks details about the response structure, but that is presumably covered by the output schema, so this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for safe and effective use.

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 schema description already fully documents the 'sections' parameter (100% coverage), including valid section names and the default of all. The description adds practical, concrete use cases via examples, going beyond the schema by showing how to apply the parameter for specific scenarios, which enhances understanding.

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 reads a snapshot of the current aircraft state, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_simvar because it covers multiple sections, but it does not explicitly name any alternative tools, so differentiation relies on the reader's understanding of the tool landscape.

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 gives practical usage examples (e.g., sections=['position'] for a position fix, ['engines', 'systems'] for systems issues) and notes the batched-call efficiency. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar ones like get_simvars_bulk or get_simvar, leaving the selection criteria implied rather than explicit.

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