weather_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects, data persistence, or interactive behavior details. It does not state whether the dashboard is read-only, whether it requires network access, or what happens with the controls. For a tool that likely involves UI rendering, more transparency about its behavior would be expected.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or the interactive nature of the dashboard, nor does it provide enough context for the agent to know what to expect. The sibling tools suggest a weather-related context, but the description alone is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'location and unit controls' which maps to 'location' and 'temperature_unit', but it does not explain 'forecast_days' or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value over the schema, and with 0% coverage, it fails to adequately explain the parameters.

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's purpose: to show an interactive weather dashboard with location and unit controls. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('interactive weather dashboard'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_weather' by emphasizing the interactive dashboard aspect. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from 'get_weather'.

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 by mentioning location and unit controls, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_weather' or 'search_locations'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The context is clear but lacks explicit 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.