space.weather

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates a read-only 'snapshot' with no side effects, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or auth requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context beyond the data fields.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element (NOAA, snapshot, specific indices) adds value.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned data. However, mentioning that it requires no input is implicit, and a note on output format would slightly improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema does the heavy lifting (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 per rules for 0 params.

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 a current NOAA space-weather snapshot with specific data points (planetary Kp index, solar flux, geomagnetic storm scale, aurora viewing forecast), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like space.body or weather.alerts.

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 use for current space-weather conditions but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. While the context makes it fairly clear, direct comparison to similar tools (e.g., space.observe for aurora forecasts) is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.