ksp_realtime_state

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 usefully discloses that data is cached, compact, and non-visual, that events are incremental, and how to recover from truncation via next_since, but it omits permission/auth requirements, whether wait_ms blocks, and caching/staleness implications of 'cached'.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then routing and operational directives, with zero filler. Every clause conveys actionable information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should be carrying more weight than it does. It gives a good conceptual model of the return (cached, compact, non-visual, incremental) but leaves four of five parameters undocumented and does not describe the shape of the returned telemetry or event stream.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'sections' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains limit, since, wait_ms, or include_events; it references next_since and height_agl, which are not parameter names at all, risking confusion with the actual 'since' parameter.

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 and resource (read compact cached telemetry and incremental KSP events) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ksp_status ('Prefer this over ksp_status while building or flying'). An agent can identify what this returns and how it differs from the main status tool without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (ksp_status) and the condition that selects this one ('while building or flying'), plus concrete operational directives for height_agl and truncated events via next_since. It does not state when NOT to use it or cover the other polling siblings (ksp_watch, ksp_wait_for_event), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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