weather

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, and it does a solid job. It explicitly states that the tool returns a summary rather than full arrays to avoid response overflow, and it explains how to get the needed rows via period and subset_out. It does not mention potential side effects (like writing a subset .wea to disk) or error conditions, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent to anticipate the response shape.

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 concise, two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence explains the output limitation and offers a solution, which is directly actionable. No filler or redundancy; each sentence contributes meaningfully to the agent's understanding.

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 documented, but the description adds value by explaining the summary vs full arrays and the overflow concern. However, it leaves timestep_min unexplained and does not cover potential edge cases or requirements (e.g., file existence, permissions). Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is not fully complete but covers the key points adequately.

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 provides zero descriptions for its parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains period and subset_out explicitly, and wea_path is implied by 'Ingest a .wea', but timestep_min is entirely unmentioned. Since two of four parameters are not adequately described, the agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool correctly, especially for the timestep_min parameter.

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 actions: ingest a .wea file and/or decompose an analysis period into HOY and wea line numbers. It also specifies the resource (.wea file) and the output (summary vs full arrays), which helps an agent understand the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like import_weather or generate_subhourly_wea, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. It does hint at using period and subset_out to obtain specific rows, but that is parameter usage, not tool selection. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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