ksp_flight_guidance_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this requires an in-flight scene, whether a guidance profile must be loaded, rate limits, or whether it is purely side-effect free. Listing return fields offers a little value but is essentially restating output content rather than behavior, and no output schema exists to justify omitting return details.

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 sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The laundry list of fields is somewhat dense but each item is a distinct output and earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return information. It covers what is returned reasonably well but omits prerequisites, scene requirements, and the distinction from the sibling update/start/stop guidance tools. Just adequate for a query tool in a complex flight-guidance family.

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 per the calibration baseline a 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by describing only outputs, matching the empty schema.

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 'Read' and enumerates exactly which fields are returned — guidance profile, phase, target, control output, ignition hold, deorbit completion, preflight report, remaining time. That is a clear resource and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ksp_flight_guidance_update, but the verb 'Read' vs 'update' implies the read/query vs mutation split.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives like ksp_status or ksp_flight_state or ksp_flight_guidance_update, and no prerequisite context such as whether a guidance session must be active. The verb 'Read' is the only usage signal.

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