ksp_flight_transfer_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: read-only and non-executing, which is the most important behavioral fact for a planning tool. However, it omits other relevant behavior: that the estimate assumes circular coplanar orbits (therefore inapplicable to eccentric/inclined transfers), whether it reads the current vessel state, and any error conditions.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the operation and the read-only guarantee are both front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain units, defaults, and what the estimate returns. Instead it covers roughly two parameters and leaves the rest of the invocation contract unstated.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it implies origin_body defaults to the active vessel's body and clarifies destination_body. It says nothing about direction (the prograde-only enum), target_altitude_m, or parking_altitude_m — units, defaults, or meaning — leaving three parameters undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and a precisely scoped resource ('transparent circular-coplanar Hohmann estimate from the active vessel's body to a destination body'), which clearly separates it from the burn-executing siblings like ksp_flight_maneuver_burn_start. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is a pre-burn planning/estimation step, and the closing clause ('does not create or execute a burn') hints at the boundary with ksp_flight_add_maneuver_node and burn-start tools. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisite list, or named alternative.

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