cyclone_get_current_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-only network fetch of a public page and returns operational product links. It does not detail failure modes or exact response structure, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two concise sentences with a front-loaded verb and no filler. It communicates purpose, output, and usage context efficiently.

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 the low complexity, single optional parameter, and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens and when to use the tool. It could add more detail about how to interpret or consume the returned product links, but overall it is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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, include_page_excerpt, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details, but it also adds no extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 that the tool fetches the current public RSMC La Réunion cyclone page and returns discovered operational product links. It also defines scope (South-West Indian Ocean cyclone activity) and distinguishes this from archive and source-related siblings.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the first call when determining whether a South-West Indian Ocean cyclone system is active. It provides clear usage context but does not name exclusions or point to specific alternative sibling tools.

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