Claude-NWS Protocol Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Getting'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and parameter details following. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no redundant information. However, the formatting could be slightly improved for better readability.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but fails to address behavioral aspects like response format, error conditions, or usage context. For a tool with no structured data support, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'state' is a 'two-letter us state code (e.g CA, NY)', which clarifies the parameter's format and provides examples. This is valuable beyond the basic schema, but it doesn't cover all potential nuances (e.g., validation rules).

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's purpose: 'Getting weather alerts for a US State.' It specifies the verb ('Getting'), resource ('weather alerts'), and scope ('for a US State'), which is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_forecast' (which likely provides forecasts rather than alerts), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of its sibling 'get_forecast' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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