What access a visitor needs for a zone of the Capitol complex: (visitor_type × zone) → allowed?, credential, escort, lead time, required docs, security entrance, and the granting authority. INFORMS, never grants — final authority is the member office / Capitol Police / Secret Service. Rules are volatile and live-source-stamped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone | Yes | Which area of the complex | |
| visitor_type | Yes | Who is visiting |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool informs only and that rules are volatile and live-source-stamped, aligning with openWorldHint. No contradictions.
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 dense sentences convey purpose, inputs, outputs, and caveats. Front-loaded with the mapping, no wasted words.
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 2 enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and important behavioral notes. Could briefly mention when to use over siblings, but overall complete.
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% with enums and descriptions. The description restates the parameters and explains their combined output, but adds no new semantic details 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 explicitly states the mapping (visitor_type × zone) → access details, with a specific verb 'check' implied. It is distinct from siblings like 'route_between' or 'prohibited_items' by focusing on access requirements.
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 provides clear usage context: 'INFORMS, never grants' and notes final authority lies elsewhere, plus volatile rules. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for appropriate use.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: accessibility routes, general routes, access checks, room finding, nearby amenities, operational overview, day planning, prohibited items, and readiness check. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are descriptive. While most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_access, find_room), a few are noun-only (nearby, overview), but the overall pattern is consistent and predictable.
9 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the Capitol complex navigation and visitor support domain.
The tool set covers core domains: navigation, accessibility, room lookup, amenities, security restrictions, and day planning. Minor gaps like event scheduling or tour information exist, but the essential use cases are well-covered.