get_jeep_trailsReturns Sedona jeep trail names available on the KAZM trail map. Pass a trail name to get its GPS coordinate path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trail | No | Trail slug, e.g. 'broken-arrow', 'schnebly'. Omit for the full list. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trail | No | ||
| trails | No | ||
| map_url | No | ||
| coordinates | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that results come from the KAZM trail map, which is useful context but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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 with distinct purposes: first sentence defines the main function, second explains parameter usage. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 the optional parameter and output schema existence, the description effectively covers both return modes (list of trail names vs. GPS coordinates). It differentiates from siblings like get_hiking_trails, though it could mention the output schema briefly.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema describes the trail parameter with examples. The description mentions 'GPS coordinate path' for the output when a trail is passed, but does not add new meaning to the parameter itself beyond the schema.
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 it returns Sedona jeep trail names from the KAZM trail map and optionally GPS coordinates for a specific trail. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'jeep trail names' provide clarity, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hiking_trails.
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 explains when to pass a trail name ('to get its GPS coordinate path') and implies omitting for the full list. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the sibling context and parameter behavior are clear.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.