space.system

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

With no annotations, description carries the burden. It discloses the tool groups planets, summarizes the host star, computes habitable zone in AU, and flags planets within it. No destructive actions or auth needs are mentioned, but the core behavior is well described.

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: first states purpose and example, second details functionality. No redundant words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains inputs and outputs. It does not mention error handling (e.g., unrecognized star), but core functionality is covered.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'hostStar' with description 'Host star name.' The description adds an example ('TRAPPIST-1') which provides context but is not essential beyond the schema. Baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'profile' and resource 'confirmed exoplanetary system by host-star name' with an example ('TRAPPIST-1'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like space.exoplanet (single planet) and space.body (celestial body) by focusing on system synthesis including habitable zone computation.

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?

Description implies when to use (when needing a system profile with habitable zone) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. The example and detailed functionality give clear context for usage.

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