get_weather

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool returns real-time weather and is scoped to Chinese cities. However, it does not mention units, response behavior for invalid cities, data source, or refresh characteristics. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not particularly rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by the parameter explanation. The bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy but is not bloated. The structure is appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-value details are not required in the description. The geographic scope and real-time nature are covered, and the single parameter is well explained. However, the lack of guidance about the sibling get_forecast leaves a noticeable contextual gap for correct tool selection.

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 does: 'city:城市名称' explains the semantic meaning of the parameter and provides concrete examples like '北京', '上海', '广州'. This gives an agent enough information to construct a valid call despite the empty schema.

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 function in both Chinese and English: getting real-time weather for a Chinese city. The verb-resource-scope combination is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_forecast, keeping it from 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 word '实时' (real-time) implies this is for current conditions rather than forecasts, which offers some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose get_weather versus get_forecast, nor any exclusionary conditions. Usage intent must be inferred rather than stated.

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