ksp_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses failure semantics ('Treat timeout, flameout, commandability loss, and vessel loss as explicit failures'), which is real behavioral value. But it says nothing about what the sampling returns, whether it is polled or blocking, or any limits, leaving significant gaps for a 7-param tool.

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 sentences, no filler, purpose stated first. Efficient and front-loaded, though the second sentence is a stand-alone rule rather than an integrated usage hint.

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 tool with 7 largely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what telemetry is returned and how the sampling controls shape it. It covers failure handling but leaves parameter behavior and return shape entirely unaddressed.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters (only 'sections' is annotated). The description never mentions since, duration, interval, event_limit, max_samples, or include_events, offering only the vague phrase 'bounded interval' that hints at two of them. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Sample compact telemetry') and a scope ('for a bounded interval'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like ksp_status, ksp_flight_state, or ksp_realtime_state that plausibly return overlapping state information.

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?

It gestures at intent ('so a model without vision can observe construction, staging, ascent, orbit, or landing') but never states when to choose this over ksp_realtime_state, ksp_flight_state, or ksp_wait_for_event. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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