forecast_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details the displayed elements (air/water temperature, precipitation, symbols) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is safe but incomplete for a mutation-free tool.

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, front-loading the main purpose and adding relevant detail in the second. No extraneous words, achieving high conciseness with all necessary information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key visual outputs (chart, card strip, water trend, symbols). It could mention whether the chart is interactive or static, but overall it is sufficient for a forecast view tool.

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 description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no extra context about the 'city' parameter beyond what the schema provides, making it adequate but not exceptional.

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 uses specific verbs ('Show', 'Displays') and resources ('24-hour forecast', 'air-temperature chart', 'hourly card strip'), clearly indicating the tool provides a visual forecast view. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_forecasts' by emphasizing the graphical presentation format, but could more explicitly contrast with raw data tools.

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 implies usage for viewing a forecast visually but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as 'get_forecasts' and 'weather_card', stating the advantage of this view (e.g., 'Use for a graphical overview') would strengthen guidance.

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