get_vortex_guideReturns a guide to Sedona's four famous energy vortex sites — Bell Rock, Cathedral Rock, Airport Mesa, and Boynton Canyon. Includes directions, hiking info, best visit times, and energy type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Filter to one vortex site |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| vortex_sites | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful content context (directions, hiking info, best visit times, energy type) without contradicting any annotations.
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?
Single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns a guide...') and efficiently lists what is included. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the optional parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it names all sites, describes the content of the guide, and implies default behavior (all sites). No critical gaps.
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% with a clear description for 'site' parameter. The main description adds value by explicitly naming the four vortex sites, providing context beyond the schema's 'Filter to one vortex site' description.
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 that the tool returns a guide to four specific vortex sites (Bell Rock, Cathedral Rock, Airport Mesa, Boynton Canyon) and lists the types of information included. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_chakra_guide' and 'get_photography_guide' by specifying the exact sites and focus on energy vortexes.
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?
The description implies usage (when you want a guide to Sedona's vortex sites) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the many sibling get_* tools.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.