inmet_estacoes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'não requer autenticação' (no authentication required), which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is complete or filtered. While the core operation is clear, the description is thin on additional behavior. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is efficient, listing each parameter and its meaning in a compact format. It could be slightly better formatted, but everything included earns its place without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The tool is simple (2 parameters), and both are fully explained. The authentication note adds context. The description covers all necessary aspects for correct invocation, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters: tipo with allowed values ("T" for automatic, "M" for conventional) and uf as an optional filter with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Lista estações meteorológicas do INMET' (lists INMET weather stations). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling 'inmet_dados' by focusing on station listing rather than data retrieval. The note about authentication adds an extra clarifying detail.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inmet_dados. It implies usage through the name and purpose (listing stations) but provides no direct comparison or exclusion. The parameter details (tipo, uf) are explained, but there's no guidance on choosing this over siblings. This is adequate but not explicit.

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