ksp_flight_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but offers no detail on freshness, rate limits, scope, or return format, and it does not state that it is non-destructive or safe to poll.

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, efficient sentence lists the telemetry domains front-loaded and without filler. It is appropriately sized, though more structure or a brief clarification of scope would help.

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 a zero-param telemetry reader with no annotations, no output schema, and many overlapping sibling status tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what distinguishes it from ksp_status or ksp_flight_guidance_status, nor does it describe the return shape, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, though it could clarify that no inputs are required.

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 read of a specific resource (active-vessel telemetry, resources, engines, stage, controls, orbital values), so the purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like ksp_status or ksp_flight_guidance_status, which likely provide overlapping state data, leaving ambiguity about which telemetry reader to use.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as ksp_status or ksp_flight_guidance_status. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list alone.

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