Live webcams at a resort — what the mountain looks like RIGHT NOW (preview image URLs + links). LICENCE TERM: webcams are provided by windy.com and must be credited as such wherever shown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resort | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: webcams are provided by windy.com and must be credited, and the result consists of preview image URLs and links rather than embedded streams. No contradiction with 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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior and output, the second the mandatory attribution requirement. The information is front-loaded and there is no redundant boilerplate.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, output format, and external attribution. The main gap is parameter-value semantics and explicit differentiation from resort_media when a photo gallery rather than live webcams is requested.
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?
The schema has one required string parameter, resort, with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'at a resort' and does not explain whether the value should be a resort name, ID, slug, or how to obtain valid values, so it adds essentially no semantic meaning beyond the property name.
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 identifies the resource ('live webcams at a resort') and the output ('preview image URLs + links'), while the 'RIGHT NOW' wording conveys that these are current visuals. This distinguishes it from siblings like snow_forecast or conditions, which return forecasts/data rather than live imagery.
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 'RIGHT NOW' framing implies the tool is for current visual conditions, and the licence note indicates the content is external. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over resort_media or conditions, nor does it name alternatives, leaving usage routing mostly implicit.
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 targets a distinct domain aspect: planning, booking, snow conditions, resort info, and costs. Even closely related tools like booking_options vs open_booking vs choose_path are clearly separated by their roles in the trip lifecycle. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Names mostly use a noun or verb_noun style in lowercase, but there is a mix of forms (e.g., 'find_resorts' vs 'conditions' vs 'where_to_ski'). The pattern is still predictable and readable, with only minor stylistic deviations.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal sweet spot, but the domain is broad (ski trip planning, conditions, booking, media, costs) and each tool clearly earns its place. It feels well-scoped without being bloated.
Covers the full trip lifecycle: research (plan_trip, trip_status, tell_skym), selection (choose_path), booking (booking_options, open_booking), live conditions (conditions, daily_snow, snow_forecast, webcams, where_to_ski), resort details (find_resorts, resort_media, getting_there), and costs (trip_costs). No obvious dead ends or missing operations.