cyclone_get_vigilance_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return includes official links and token configuration status, but does not explain what 'token configuration status' means (e.g., whether this triggers network calls, requires auth), nor does it disclose side effects or data source behavior. Under-specified for a tool that likely connects to external services.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the core function and the additional status info. No fluff; every word contributes. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 it's a no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover return format and behavioral caveats. It mentions token configuration status but omits details like link format, whether they are live or static, or what the status indicates. For a tool in a cyclone context, users may need to know if this is safe to call repeatedly or has rate limits.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline is 4 for no-parameter tools, and the description correctly focuses on what it returns, adding value beyond the empty 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 states the tool returns official vigilance links for two specific territories (La Réunion and Mayotte) and additionally reports token configuration status. This is specific about the resource (vigilance links) and distinguishes it from siblings like cyclone_get_sources or cyclone_get_current_activity, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It implies use for fetching vigilance links and checking token configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No exclusions or mention of related tools for deeper context, so it's adequate but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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