get_disruptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about freshness of data, network breadth (all modes vs tube only), return shape, or any limits, leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized for a no-argument list call.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only information source, yet it does not say what a 'disruption' entails (severity, affected lines, reason) or the data's freshness. Adequate to invoke, but thin for an agent needing to interpret or route results.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing because none exists to convey.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (disruptions) with a scope qualifier ('all current' on the TfL network). The word 'current' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_planned_works, but the description never names or mentions planned works explicitly, so the differentiation remains inferential.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current' suggests real-time status rather than planned/upcoming works, which nudges the agent away from get_planned_works. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_line_status or get_all_lines_status, and no exclusions given.

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