get_aircraft_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is appropriate. However, it lacks disclosure of any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple list retrieval, this is minimally adequate but could be improved with explicit mention of idempotence.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the essential action and resource. No wasted words; every part of the sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and scope. It does not describe the return format or what 'status' entails, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of complexity, it is largely complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, making schema coverage 100% vacuously. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. No information is missing.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action 'Get', the resource 'list of all aircraft', and the scope 'in the mission' with what's included ('with their status'). It distinctly separates this tool from siblings like 'get_all_units' (all units) and 'get_mission_info' (mission metadata).

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use or exclude, the description implies its role for aircraft status retrieval versus sibling tools like 'get_all_units' which cover all units. The context of a dedicated aircraft list provides implicit guidance for selecting this tool over broader alternatives.

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