规划真实路线

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond confirming it returns route details, which is expected.

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 front-loaded with key actions and outputs. No filler or redundant 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?

Despite having 7 parameters and nested objects, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to use optional parameters like 'strategy', 'coordinate_system', or 'city'. However, an output schema exists, so return structure is covered.

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 57%, meaning some parameters have descriptions but others don't. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only generically mentions 'real coordinates'. It could compensate for the gap but does not.

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 plans routes using real start/end coordinates for walking, driving, or transit, and returns distance, time, and steps. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'amap_get_directions'.

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 it is used for planning real routes with coordinates, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus similar tools like 'amap_get_directions'. No when-not-to-use context is provided.

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