ksp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it is a parameterless read, so the risk surface is small. The description does disclose the content set it returns, which is useful, but says nothing about whether calls are cached, how expensive they are, or whether fields are absent when not in flight or not in the editor.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and then lists the payload. Nothing is padded, though the comma-chained noun list is dense and could have been grouped more legibly (e.g., scene/editor vs. flight telemetry vs. bridge metadata).

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, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the return categories, which is the key information for an agent deciding whether to call it. It stops short of describing field-level detail or the shape of the 'compact flight telemetry', but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 (schema has an empty properties object), so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level claims are made that could mislead.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the five concrete resources returned: current scene, editor craft summary, compact flight telemetry, no-visual control capabilities, and bridge version. This is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely overlapping siblings such as ksp_flight_state or ksp_realtime_state, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this aggregator.

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 when this is preferable to ksp_flight_state, ksp_realtime_state, or ksp_watch, and no prerequisites. The breadth of the tool (scene + editor + flight + capabilities + version) arguably makes it a good first probe, but that intent is left entirely to inference.

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