ksp_flight_bodies

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 disclose the prerequisite that data comes 'from the running KSP instance' and the verb 'Read' establishes it as a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about failure modes, return format, or how data is scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb, with no wasted filler. The enumeration of data categories is dense but useful rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description only partially compensates: it sketches the returned data categories but omits any explanation of the 'query' parameter and omits error/availability behavior.

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 single 'query' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The agent cannot tell what 'query' filters or its expected syntax.

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 ('Read') and resource ('celestial-body radii, gravitational parameters, atmospheres, spheres of influence, and patched-conic orbit data'), which is far more concrete than a generic 'get data'. No sibling tool covers celestial bodies, so it is effectively distinguished, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance whatsoever. The description only enumerates the data categories returned, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for looking up body/orbit constants.

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