get_distanceКилометры по автомобильной дороге (OSRM) и время на машине; есть ли прямой автобус.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) | |
| from | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) |
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. It usefully specifies the data source (OSRM), the metric types (road distance and car time), and the bus-availability check. Still, it does not mention return shape, units, potential failure behavior, or that this is a safe read-only operation.
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, dense sentence that states all main outputs without filler. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool computes.
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 simple two-string-parameter tool, the description covers the core returned values — distance, driving time, and direct bus existence. It lacks explicit detail on units and result format, and there is no output schema to compensate, so the completeness is good but not perfect.
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 100% — both 'from' and 'to' are already documented as Russian city names or slugs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 lists what the tool returns — road kilometers via OSRM, driving time, and direct bus availability — making its function easily understood. The title 'Расстояние между городами' reinforces the scope. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement and does not name how it differs from siblings like get_route or search_routes.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With tools like get_route, find_transfer, and search_routes nearby, the description does not help an agent select between them.
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.
Several tools overlap: search_routes and cheapest_destinations both list destinations from a city with price information, and city_departures/get_route both touch schedule details. The other tools are more distinct, but the listing-style tools create some ambiguity despite helpful descriptions.
Five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_distance, get_route, get_station, find_transfer, search_routes), but cheapest_destinations, city_departures, and price_per_km_stats are descriptive noun phrases. The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb convention is not uniform.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a bus travel information server. Each tool contributes a meaningful capability around routes, pricing, transfers, stations, or statistics, without feeling bloated or overly thin.
The set covers the core traveler workflow: searching routes, finding cheap options, getting detailed schedules, handling transfers, checking distances, looking up stations, and comparing price statistics. Minor gaps exist, such as no arrival-focused query or direct city-pair comparison beyond route lookup, but they are workable.