get_weather_warnings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behavior: results are aggregated by warning type with affected counties and valid times, and it specifies the exact fallback message when no warnings are active nationwide. This is concrete behavioral context that helps an agent anticipate output and edge cases.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds behavioral detail about aggregation and the no-warning case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, how results are structured, and the no-warning response. No critical operational details are 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 and the schema contains no properties, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 查詢目前生效中的天氣特報 (query currently active weather advisories). It enumerates the warning types (颱風、豪雨、大雨、低溫、強風等), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_forecast and get_recent_earthquakes by topic and temporal state.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever currently active weather warnings are needed, with a defined aggregate output. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can decide correctly without confusion.

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