generate_subhourly_wea

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses the default timestep satisfying the nvRD step guard, the site-location default derived from the EPW LOCATION line, the DAYSIM coordinate convention (WEST-positive longitude, time_zone in degrees = -15 × UTC offset), and the fallback behavior when Daysim is absent (returns command plan + written .hea). This is substantial behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but information-efficient, front-loading the core pipeline and putting the most critical caveat (coordinate convention) in the middle where the override discussion lives. Every sentence adds value; it could benefit from minor structuring but is far from bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already covered. For a 9-parameter, Daysim-integrated pipeline tool with zero annotations, the description explains defaults, conventions, and fallback behavior well. Remaining gaps are the unexplained solar_time and run parameters, which keep it from a 5.

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 explains epw, work_dir, timestep_min (default 6), and the coordinate overrides with their DAYSIM convention. However, solar_time and run (a boolean) are never mentioned, leaving two of nine parameters semantically unexplained. Coverage is good but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific transformation chain 'EPW -> sub-hourly broadband .wea via Daysim (epw2wea -> .hea -> ds_shortterm)', naming the exact input, output, and pipeline. This clearly distinguishes it from weather-related siblings like weather, import_weather, spectral_epw, and atmosphere_from_epw, all of which do different things.

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 tells the agent the normal invocation ('normally you only pass the epw + work_dir') and conditions the override parameters on explicit intent ('Pass explicit latitude/longitude/time_zone/site_elevation only to override'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the default-vs-override guidance is clear context.

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