lyon_environment_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that indicators without a source are signaled without blocking others, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on update frequency, data accuracy, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. However, could be improved by including brief parameter descriptions without adding length.

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 tool has 3 parameters (one nested), no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavior but falls short on parameter semantics and output expectations. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but parameter guidance is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'for a zone' and lists indicator types, but does not describe the 'at' (time) or 'indicators' (filter) parameters, nor the structure of the 'location' object. This leaves agents guessing about required parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns environmental indicators (pollen, air quality, heat) for a zone, with a specific verb ('disponibles' implies retrieves). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different domains like transport and parking.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, sibling tools are clearly in different domains (mobility, facilities), so usage context is clear. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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