get_weather

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. However, it only states the basic function and gives no information about side effects (though likely none), return format, error behavior, or server constraints. The mention of 'my-weather-server-0706' adds little transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It contains no fluff or redundant information beyond the necessary, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the basic purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what 'current real weather' returns (e.g., temperature, conditions) to fully inform the agent, but it does not. This leaves a moderate gap.

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 already documents the 'city' parameter with a description ('城市名称'). The description only repeats this by saying '指定城市' and adds no additional meaning about parameter format, allowed values, or defaults. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 function: '获取指定城市的当前真实天气' (get current real weather for a specified city). It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前真实天气'), making the purpose unambiguous. Although there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the description is precise and actionable.

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 ('use this to get weather for a city') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. For a simple tool this may be sufficient, but the description does not state any prerequisites or conditions beyond having a city name.

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