Rank resorts by live conditions. Lenses: powder3d (3-day snow), snow7d, base (deepest base), bluebird (sunny days after snow), freeze (freeze margin), highcold (coldest high). Optional country ISO-2, min_summit metres, glacier-only, min_lifts. Top 20 max.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lens | No | powder3d | |
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| glacier | No | ||
| min_lifts | No | ||
| min_summit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context like the 'Top 20 max' result cap and the meaning of each lens. It does not describe return shape, ordering direction, or any external data dependencies, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists lenses and filters in an efficient parenthetical style. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler 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 read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the description provides enough invocation context: purpose, lens options, optional filters, and a result cap. It does not describe the return format or field details, but that is not strictly necessary for selecting and calling the tool successfully.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It compensates well by defining each lens, noting the ISO-2 country format, giving metres for min_summit, and mentioning glacier-only and min_lifts. The limit parameter is only indirectly addressed by 'Top 20 max,' so it does not fully document every 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Rank resorts by live conditions.' It also lists the available lenses, which clarifies what kind of rankings are provided. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like conditions, snow_forecast, or find_resorts.
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 gives clear filter options but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as conditions, daily_snow, or snow_forecast. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a decision rule for choosing this ranking tool over its siblings.
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.