safety_briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses an API (flow_gefahrenstufe) to highlight the current reading, but does not elaborate on any side effects, network dependencies, or error behavior. It is honest 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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary function is stated upfront in the first sentence, and the second adds a key detail about the data source.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and data dependency. It could be improved by briefly mentioning the return format (e.g., text or visual representation), but it is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'city' with an example list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', 'Translates') and clearly identifies the resource (BAFU 1–5 danger level scale with current reading and plain swimmer guidance). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_flow_danger_level', which likely returns raw data, by emphasizing the scale visualization and translation.

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 displaying the danger scale and plain language guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_flow_danger_level' or other display tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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