get_flow_danger_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description only states it 'get's' data, implying no mutation, but is not explicit.

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 with a clear header and structured thresholds list. Every sentence adds value, though the thresholds could be presented more compactly without compromising clarity.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It provides thresholds for interpretation and context for safety-critical use, making it reasonably complete for its 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the city parameter with description referencing list_cities(). The description adds flow safety thresholds which help interpret output but do not add meaning to the parameter itself, keeping it at baseline.

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 it retrieves current flow rate and BAFU danger assessment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_conditions that may not include danger assessment. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specifies using this tool for safety-critical questions about current strength and swimming danger, providing clear context for its use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like safety_briefing.

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