get_disruptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool gets 'current disruptions', but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for invalid station IDs. Significant gaps exist.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded and every word is meaningful. Highly efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description is marginally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on sibling tool differentiation and behavioral details, leaving the agent with unanswered questions.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'stationId'. The description adds value by linking it to the 'search_station tool', aiding the agent in sourcing the correct ID. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'disruptions, warnings, and service information', and the context 'for a station'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_arrivals and get_departures which focus on specific events.

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?

Description implies usage for checking current disruptions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_journeys or get_arrivals. No when-not or comparative context is given.

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