Load Flight Plan

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors: the aircraft is not repositioned, and the tool deliberately waits for MSFS to resume answering SimConnect before returning. It also points to a cross-reference for the reasoning. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by two essential behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the most important facts immediately visible. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 required parameter, an available output schema, and annotations covering read-only/destructive characteristics, the description is complete enough for safe invocation. It adds the critical waiting behavior and non-repositioning guarantee. No essential information for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%; the path parameter is already documented as 'Absolute path to a .PLN flight plan.' The description repeats the .PLN detail but adds no new format, validation, or example information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Load a .PLN flight plan into the aircraft's GPS or FMS.' It also clarifies scope with 'The aircraft is not repositioned,' which distinguishes it from msfs_load_flight. This lets the agent identify the tool without inspecting the schema.

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 no-repositioning statement gives clear context for when to use this tool instead of a flight-loading sibling. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but it implies the distinction well. The reference to msfs_save_flight's docstring also guides the agent on the waiting behavior.

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