get_weatherClima actual REAL en la montaña, medido por la estación del refugio en Vallecitos (2.800 m, Cordón del Plata). Usar cuando pregunten por el clima/tiempo en Vallecitos, el Cordón del Plata o para planificar una salida en la zona.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint. Description adds specific source (station at 2800m, Cordón del Plata) and emphasizes 'REAL' current data, beyond what annotations convey.
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 waste. First sentence immediately states purpose and source. Second provides usage context. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. Could be slightly more specific about the type of weather data (e.g., temperature, wind) but overall 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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description does not need to explain parameter details. The description adds context about the data source and scope.
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 it provides real current weather measured by a specific refuge station, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_availability or check_closures.
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 to use when asked about weather in Vallecitos or Cordón del Plata, and for planning outings. No explicit when-not, but context is sufficient given no alternative weather 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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose covering availability, closures, contact, pricing, weather, directions, room types, general info, and reservations. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_availability, get_price, list_room_types, request_reservation). 'how_to_arrive' is the only slight deviation but still clear.
9 tools is well-scoped for a mountain refuge information and booking system. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers the full user journey: information, availability, pricing, weather, directions, and reservation request with preview/confirm. Missing cancellation or reservation status check, but these are not critical for the core workflow.