arnfa_sky_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the forecast is 'real forecast at its centre', a useful limitation, but does not explain how the verdict is derived or mention read-only nature or any potential side effects. This adds some context 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a notable caveat.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core output (current sky + verdict) and an important spatial limitation. However, it omits any detail about the output format or how the verdict is determined, which could be helpful.

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 100% with the parameter 'area' described as 'area key, e.g. 'phuket''. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides 'Current sky + a go-out verdict' for an area, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arnfa_plan_day (future planning) and arnfa_list_areas (listing areas) by focusing on current conditions and a verdict.

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 phrase 'current sky' implies use for immediate conditions, and the 'go-out verdict' suggests a decision aid, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like arnfa_plan_day or arnfa_where, nor does it state any exclusions.

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