dark_hour_analysis

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves paths and classifies them based on solar elevation, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential limitations, data source specifics, or whether it modifies anything. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short clarification, totaling under 50 words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and provides an example use case. It does not explicitly describe the output schema, but that is acceptable since the schema is provided. Minor omission: no mention that month defaults to aggregated, but overall complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by tying 'band' and 'hour' to solar geometry and mentioning the classification outcome, but does not elaborate on optional parameters like 'month' or 'source'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 classifies propagation paths by solar geometry into three categories (both-day, cross-terminator, or both-dark). The verb 'Classify' and the resource 'propagation paths' are specific, and the output categories are listed, making it distinct from sibling tools like path_analysis or solar_correlation.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for identifying physically anomalous paths (e.g., 10m both-dark propagation).' This tells the agent when to apply the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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