get_weather

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the data source (on-disk save file), the reason ('the bridge has no weather endpoint'), and a concrete staleness bound of up to one in-game day. It even adds a gameplay implication tying full moons to hordes. It stops short of describing pagination, defaults, or error behavior for a missing save root.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the data-source caveat and a useful gameplay note. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does: current weather, moon phase, and a 38-day forecast. Combined with the staleness warning, an agent has enough to call and interpret it. A minor gap is that it never explains what the reply looks like when all_forecast is false versus true.

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 both parameters (save_root and all_forecast) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of the '38-day forecast' loosely relates to all_forecast but does not clarify the default behavior or what omitting save_root does beyond what the schema already says.

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 a specific verb and a concrete set of resources: 'Read current weather, moon phase and the 38-day forecast from the newest save file.' An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this from look-alike siblings such as get_daily_report or get_state, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for weather/moon/forecast questions, and the note that data comes from the newest save file and may lag by up to one in-game day tells the agent when results might be stale. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling report tool instead, and no exclusions.

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