get_typhoon_warning

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

The description communicates that the tool queries recent typhoon warnings and lists the data fields returned (name, path, rain/wind sections). It implies read-only via '查詢' (query). However, with no annotations present, it doesn't disclose limits, pagination, or error behavior – so it's adequate but not thorough.

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?

A single sentence that packs the resource, action, and output scope without redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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 read operation with one parameter, it provides enough to call correctly. It lacks output schema details but states the content types included. No edge cases or error info, but acceptable for a query tool. Score 4.

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 only parameter, limit, is not documented in the schema (0% coverage), but the description says '最近 N 筆' (most recent N items), which directly clarifies that limit controls how many recent warnings are returned. This compensates for the missing schema description, though it doesn't mention the default value or any bounds. Score 4 because the description adds useful semantic context for the 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 queries recent typhoon warnings and specifies the returned content (name, path intensity, rain/wind sections). It names the specific resource and verb, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_weather_warning by resource type. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it's just short of a 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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use for typhoon forecasts' or contrast it with get_weather_warning or get_earthquake_report. The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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