get_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. The agent is left without information on what the tool does beyond the trivial action, making the tool's behavior opaque.

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, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It follows a clear subject-verb-object structure and is appropriately front-loaded. No unnecessary words or details detract from its clarity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values. However, the description is minimal and does not provide any context about the type of weather information returned (e.g., temperature, conditions) or how to interpret the result. While the single parameter and clear purpose make it functional, the lack of any additional context or usage nuances slightly reduces 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 only parameter 'city' is defined in the schema merely as a required string. The description adds no extra meaning, such as expected formats, examples, or the distinction between city names and coordinates. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are severely lacking.

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 the action 'Get', the resource 'current weather', and the scope 'for a city'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_weather_forecast (which implies future weather) and search_city (which likely returns city metadata). The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. While the word 'current' hints at a difference from forecast, the tool lacks direct instructions for an agent to select it confidently among the many related tools.

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