get_space_weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states data source. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, latency, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant unknowns.

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 very concise at two sentences plus a list, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value, including the Kp-index scale and data source, with no wasted words.

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 simple no-param tool that returns the Kp-index, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool returns and its interpretation. The presence of an output schema likely covers return format. Minor lack of tie-in to sibling tools.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description adds no extra param info, which is acceptable.

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 tool fetches the current planetary Kp-index from NOAA SWPC, a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_lunar_phase by focusing on geomagnetic activity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description explains Kp-index levels but does not mention situations favoring this tool over siblings like get_daily_briefing or get_cosmic_risk_score.

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