list_journeysList published Jenesis journeys, residences, group programmes, and packages (including Phuket Fit). Live CMS data. Enquiry-led — not a booking inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds 'Live CMS data' (real-time source) and 'Enquiry-led' (data nature), which are useful behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's 'List' implies a list result but doesn't specify format or pagination. The purpose is clear and the context (live CMS, enquiry-led) helps, but missing param semantics reduce completeness.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description implicitly explains the 'kind' enum by listing journeys, residences, group programmes, and packages, but the 'q' and 'limit' parameters receive no semantics. Description partially compensates but not fully.
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 resource types (journeys, residences, group programmes, packages) with a specific verb 'List'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_journey (single) and list_faqs by naming the full scope.
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?
'Enquiry-led — not a booking inventory' provides explicit context on when to use (enquiries) and when not (bookings). However, no specific alternative tool is named, so it falls short of full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: company info, journey listing/detail, FAQs, budget estimation, and enquiry submission. No two tools overlap in function, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (estimate, get, list, start) with lowercase and underscores. This is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a niche travel website, covering the essential informational and enquiry-driven workflows without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full user journey for an enquiry-led travel planner: exploring options, getting details, understanding pricing, accessing FAQs, and initiating contact. No obvious dead ends.