Get Interchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the positive/negative path sign convention follows AESO Current Supply Demand standards, and the inclusion of net interchange. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and units (MW) before mentioning the sign convention. Every clause adds value; there is no filler. It is ideal in length and structure.

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 a zero-parameter tool with a rich output schema (has output schema: true), the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: what data is returned (flows per path), the unit (MW), the inclusion of net interchange, and the sign convention. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings because there are none. It adds no unnecessary param info, so 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('current Alberta interchange flows by path in MW'), and includes net interchange. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_intertie_capability (which measures capability, not flows) and get_intertie_outages (outage status). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool provides current flows, which implies it is for real-time interchange data rather than capability or scheduled outages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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