cyclone_list_communes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It is a read-only operation (list), but it doesn't explicitly confirm that it has no side effects. It also doesn't describe output format or any potential data limitations. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it adds only minimal context. A 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource. It conveys the tool's purpose and its relationship to another tool without any wasted words. It is concise and clearly structured.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, clear purpose, no output schema. The description adequately communicates what the tool does and its relationship to a sibling. Given its low complexity, it is nearly complete, but it could have mentioned the layout of the output (e.g., 'returns the list of commune names and centroids') for completeness. However, it does not need much more, making a 4 appropriate.

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 itself has full coverage (100%) with a `territory` parameter and an enum of possible values. The description adds the context that the list is for La Réunion and Mayotte, which reinforces the parameter's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is expected, but the description's explicit mention of territory values adds a slight bonus, making it a 4.

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 'List built-in commune centroids used by cyclone_estimate_commune_exposure for La Réunion and Mayotte.' It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'commune centroids', and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its purpose as a support tool for another tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but it is clear.

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 implies usage context: it is a listing tool for centroids used by another tool, so it is likely called by users who want to see available data before running exposure estimates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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