Weather

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect — that it renders to the physical Bar with an icon unless show=false — which is the most important behavioral trait. But it omits whether it overwrites existing Bar content, whether it requires network access or credentials for Open-Meteo, units/locale of the result, and what happens for unknown cities.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and the display side effect but leaves the return value shape (temperature units, condition fields) and the interaction with existing Bar content unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for 'show' by explaining the default behavior (display on the Bar) and how to suppress it, and 'city' is implied to be a place name. It adds no format or matching detail for city (e.g. name vs. coordinates, disambiguation).

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 names a specific resource and action ('Current weather for a city') and even names the data source (Open-Meteo), which is more than the title 'Weather' conveys. It also distinguishes itself from the bar_* rendering siblings by noting it displays on the Bar rather than being a pure display primitive.

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 clause 'unless show=false' implies a fetch-only use case versus a fetch-and-display use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over the bar_* tools or what to do if a city name is ambiguous, so usage is only implied rather than spelled out.

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