Refresh Sun

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose what 'refresh' means—whether it fetches new data from an API, updates cache, or triggers side effects. No mention of rate limits, auth, or reversibility. The 'called from UI' suggests a specific context but doesn't explain expected behavior or side effects.

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, short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It's not verbose, but the sentence 'called from UI' is somewhat wasteful and adds little value, so it loses a point for not being maximally efficient.

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 only one parameter but no description coverage, and an output schema exists (which may help understand return format), the description is still insufficient. It omits any context about what 'sun data' includes (e.g., sunrise/sunset times, UV index) and how to specify the city correctly. It's a simple tool, but the gaps in parameter and behavioral clarity leave agents guessing.

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 0; the description adds no detail beyond the schema's 'city' parameter. The schema only lists 'city' as a string with no format or examples, and the description provides no explanation of what 'city' should be (e.g., name, ID, coordinates). This is a critical gap for correct usage.

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 the verb 'Refresh' and resource 'sun data' for a city, which is clear enough, but the phrase 'called from UI' is odd and does not add semantic clarity. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many other refresh_* siblings beyond the 'sun' specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'called from UI', hinting that it's for UI-triggered refreshes, but that is vague and not actionable. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions.

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