cptec__ondas_cidade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool provides wave forecasts, with no mention of data freshness, limitations, or whether it is read-only. For a forecast tool, more transparency about update frequency or geographic scope would be expected.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence. However, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations. It is efficiently structured but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 (not shown) and the input schema covers all parameters, the description is somewhat complete. However, it does not explain what the output contains or any side effects. For a forecast tool, a brief note on expected response structure would improve completeness. The description adequately defines the tool's scope but lacks depth.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful semantic information beyond the schema; it repeats that 'codigo' comes from cptec__buscar_cidade and 'dias' is optional. No additional context about parameter format or constraints is provided.

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?

Description is 'Previsão oceânica (ondas) para uma cidade litorânea,' which clearly states the tool provides ocean wave forecasts for coastal cities. It uses a specific verb ('Previsão') and resource ('ondas') and distinguishes from sibling tools like cptec__previsao_cidade (weather) and cptec__clima_aeroporto (airport climate).

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 implicitly indicates use for coastal cities, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cptec__clima_aeroporto or cptec__previsao_cidade. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are given.

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