get_spot_planning_contextUse this when the user asks about a specific surf spot. Returns difficulty, hazards, season, travel access, wave type, swell/wind requirements, and Strike Mission links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spot | Yes | Spot name, slug, or numeric Strike Mission spot id, for example Uluwatu, uluwatu, or 1. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by listing the return fields, giving the agent a clear picture of what information to expect.
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?
One efficient sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with usage context, then lists return content.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could be slightly more detailed about output format, but 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'spot' 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returns planning context for a specific surf spot. It lists specific information categories (difficulty, hazards, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_live_spot_forecast or compare_surf_destinations.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about a specific surf spot.' While it doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, the context and sibling tool names imply when not to use (e.g., for live forecasts).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: compare_surf_destinations, recommend_surf_trip_destinations, and find_surf_trip_guides all provide destination recommendations and planning guidance, making it unclear when to use which. The descriptions partially differentiate them but boundaries remain ambiguous.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_surf_destinations, get_live_spot_forecast) using snake_case. While verbs vary, the pattern is consistent and predictable. No mixing of conventions or unclear naming.
With 5 tools covering recommendations, comparisons, forecasts, and spot details, the count is well-scoped for a specialized surf trip planner. Each tool serves a clear role without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core surf trip planning needs: destination recommendations, comparisons, live forecasts, and spot context. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for managing user preferences or historical data), but agents can still plan effectively.