cyclone_get_rsmc_archives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a fetch operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional details such as authentication, rate limits, or what the returned links contain. It is adequate for a simple read but lacks depth.

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 sentences with no fluff, front-loading the action and then adding a usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and the schema covers the parameter. It could mention the limit parameter, but the schema already does, so it is complete enough.

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 schema alone provides full coverage of the single parameter (limit) with a clear description of its purpose and constraints. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 RSMC La Réunion public archive index and returns archive links. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning historical cyclone-season research, contrasting with current activity and vigilance tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for historical cyclone-season research'), which implies it is not for current activity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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