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

No annotations provided. Description only indicates a create operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, required auth, or behavior on invalid input. Lacks depth beyond the action.

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?

Short and structured with an Args block. No unnecessary words, but could integrate Args more naturally. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Has output schema, so return values are covered. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., valid route_data), error handling, or idempotency info. Adequate for a simple creation tool.

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. Description adds meaning for route_data (JSON from specific tools) but only minimal for name and sport (defaults not stated). Compensates partially, 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?

Description states verb 'create' and resource 'planned tour on Komoot', and specifies input sources (plan_route or import_gpx_route outputs). It distinguishes from siblings like plan_route and import_gpx_route by clarifying its role as a post-processing step.

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?

Implicitly indicates usage after plan_route or import_gpx_route, but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Could be more direct about prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Supprimer un tour' (delete a tour), but does not disclose if deletion cascades to associated data, if it is immediate/permanent, or what checks occur. A destructive operation like this needs more behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence + Args). It is concise but lacks necessary depth. The structure is minimal, with the Args section repeating the schema. It earns its place only as a basic purpose statement.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and one required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/error behavior, or permissions. For a deletion tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use it safely.

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 0% because the description repeats the parameter name ('tour_id') and its role ('ID du tour a supprimer') which is identical to the schema property title 'Tour Id'. It adds no additional meaning such as format, constraints, or examples. For a single required parameter, the description should provide more value.

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 'Supprimer un tour' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (tour). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_tour or create_planned_tour. However, it is minimal and could be more explicit about what exactly is deleted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether deletion requires authorization, or if the operation is reversible. The only context is the parameter, which is already in the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is binary and not displayable, but does not discuss authentication, side effects, or other behavioral traits. Some transparency is provided.

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 very concise with two sentences and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and the binary nature of the output. It adequately informs the agent about what to expect, though it could mention error conditions.

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 0%, so description must add value. The description mentions 'tour_id: ID du tour', which repeats the schema but adds no extra details like type or required status. It provides marginal addition over 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 the verb 'Telecharger' (download) and the resource 'tour' with a specific format 'FIT (format Garmin/ANT+)'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_tour_gpx' by specifying the format.

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 usage for downloading a tour in FIT format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'download_tour_gpx'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format (GPX as XML) but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. The word 'download' implies read-only, but more detail would be better.

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?

Description is very concise, with no unnecessary words. Args and Returns are clearly structured in a docstring format, aiding quick parsing.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains input, output format, and the action. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'tour_id' by stating 'ID du tour', which goes beyond the schema's type-only definition. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable.

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 action (download), resource (tour), and format (GPX), distinguishing it from siblings like download_tour_fit or get_tour. The phrase 'trace GPS complete' adds clarity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., download_tour_fit for FIT format). No prerequisites or context provided, missing opportunities to help agent decide.

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

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 only states it retrieves details, but does not mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. For a simple GET-like operation, more transparency 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 very short (two lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient with no extraneous text. However, structuring with bullet points or clearer separation of argument description could improve readability.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (handling return structure), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about data freshness, error conditions, or any usage examples. For a simple tool, it is functional but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter. The description adds the French phrase 'ID du highlight' which essentially repeats the parameter name. This provides minimal added meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 tool retrieves details of a Komoot highlight (community point of interest) using a French translation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_highlight_tips' which might retrieve tips for a highlight. The verb 'get detail' and resource 'highlight' are specific and clear.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is purely functional without usage direction.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects). For a read operation, it is likely safe, but the description fails to confirm this. The burden falls entirely on the description, and it offers minimal transparency.

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 short (two sentences plus ARGS) with no fluff. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, lacking necessary detail about parameters.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance makes it minimally adequate for a simple get tool.

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 0%, and the description only reiterates the parameter name 'highlight_id' without explaining its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The ARGS section adds no value 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 the tool gets 'conseils/tips de la communaute pour un highlight', which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_highlight' which gets the highlight itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation (returning details) but does not explicitly state any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a structured Args section. It wastes no words, though it is in French while the tool name is English. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description does not need to detail return values. For a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps in 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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage for parameters (only title and type). The description's Args section adds meaningful context: 'ID du tour Komoot' explains what the integer represents. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, going beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 verb 'get' (via 'Detail complet') and the resource 'tour', listing specific details like distance, elevation, duration, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_tours' (which lists multiple tours without full details) and other getters like 'get_tour_coordinates' (which focuses on a single aspect).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for specific sub-details (e.g., get_tour_coordinates for coordinates). The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as data ordering, limits, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). While the tool appears to be a read operation, the description does not confirm this.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points) but is acceptable.

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 simple purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help the agent decide when to use this tool. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only adds 'ID du tour' for tour_id, which is minimal and already implied by the parameter name. The schema defines tour_id as an integer, but the description adds no formatting or constraints beyond that.

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 that the tool returns a sequence of coordinates (lat, lng, alt, timestamp) for a tour, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_tour or get_tour_directions that may provide similar data.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context about when it is appropriate or when to choose other tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or what side effects exist. The description only states the function without behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and an argument list. Every part is relevant, with no unnecessary or repetitive content.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple retrieval) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the essential purpose and parameter, though it lacks details about return format or prerequisites.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides a brief explanation for 'tour_id' as 'ID du tour.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Tour Id.' For a single parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states 'Instructions de navigation turn-by-turn d'un tour planifié,' which clearly indicates the tool provides turn-by-turn directions for a planned tour. The resource (tour directions) and verb (get) are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_tour_coordinates and plan_route.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply describes what the tool does without context on when it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'list images' without mentioning any side effects, return format, pagination, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter definition. No fluff, front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. Given an output schema exists, return details are acceptable to omit. However, lack of behavioral context and usage guidance leaves gaps; a 3 is fair.

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 0%, but the description adds a clear explanation for the sole parameter: 'tour_id: ID du tour.' This meaningfully extends the schema, providing necessary context despite its brevity.

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 action (Lister) and the resource (images/photos d'un tour), immediately conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings that perform other operations like create, delete, or download.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use when images are needed, but does not specify exclusions or compare with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences: first explains purpose with examples, second lists parameter. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers purpose and parameter. Lacks usage guidance but overall complete for complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description must compensate. It only restates 'tour_id: ID du tour' adding minimal meaning beyond the schema field name. No details on format, validation, or source.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns surface types per segment of a tour, with examples (asphalt, gravel, dirt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tour or get_tour_way_types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_tour_way_types). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or error handling. It only states the return type, offering minimal transparency beyond the tool's purpose.

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 extremely concise, with two lines that front-load the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous 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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It could mention common error cases or clarify the relationship to sibling tools. The output schema likely provides return values, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds 'ID du tour' to explain the tour_id parameter, which the schema only titles as 'Tour Id'. This provides basic meaning, but no additional details like constraints or examples.

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 that the tool returns road types (e.g., route, cycle path, trail) per segment of a tour. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tour_surfaces or get_tour_coordinates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. No mention of rate limits or data freshness. The description is minimal and does not add sufficient behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. Every word is relevant and earns its place. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns. However, it could be improved by explicitly noting that the profile retrieved belongs to the authenticated user, and clarifying what 'stats' encompasses. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the scoring rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 tool retrieves the profile of the connected Komoot user and lists specific fields (name, avatar, stats). It uses a specific verb ('Profil...') and resource ('utilisateur connecte'), making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tools target user profiles, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since no other tool retrieves a user profile, the usage context is implied. A brief note on prerequisites (e.g., requiring authentication) would improve this dimension.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool imports and matches a GPX file, but does not disclose side effects, data mutations, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates missing return info, but the description lacks essential behavioral details.

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 brief and efficient: two sentences for purpose and usage, plus a bullet list for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the step hint is front-loaded. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the basic workflow and parameter meaning. However, it lacks details on output format, error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., valid GPX format, supported sports). The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains gpx_content as GPX content (XML text) and sport as the type of sport for matching. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not enumerate supported sport values or provide format constraints.

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 tool imports a GPX file and matches it to the Komoot road network for route planning. It specifies it is step 1/2 and explicitly names the next tool (create_planned_tour), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 that this tool is the first step for creating a planned tour from an external GPX, and instructs to use create_planned_tour next. This provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative approaches.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and does not mention pagination behavior, sorting details, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description is essentially a parameter list without additional behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured as a clear argument list. It contains no unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 8 optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral context such as default sort order or pagination behavior. It is complete for a parameter list but missing some operational context.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and constraints (e.g., tour_type: 'tour_planned', 'tour_recorded', or None; sport_types: comma-separated; page: 0-indexed; limit: default 30, max 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'List your Komoot tours (planned and recorded).' It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'tours', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tour (single tour) or plan_route.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tour for a single tour or create_planned_tour for creation. It implies that listing is for multiple tours but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or destructive, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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 brief and structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args section. It is efficient without redundancies, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated.

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 lack of annotations and the schema's 0% description coverage, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but misses behavioral context and usage guidance. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the description is still incomplete for safe tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining coordinates as waypoints with an example and listing the allowed sport values, which are not in the schema. This adds significant meaning 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 the tool plans a Komoot route from waypoints, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like create_planned_tour, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_planned_tour or import_gpx_route. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden. It states it modifies metadata, implying mutation, but reveals no behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, partial update support, or error states.

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 concise (5 lines of args) and uses a structured list. No wasted words, though the French language may reduce clarity for non-French speakers.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main parameters adequately but omits behavioral context like success/failure indications. The sport enum list adds value.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for 'sport' by listing allowed values, and explains 'tour_id' and 'name' briefly. However, it does not cover default behavior or null handling for optional parameters.

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 modifies tour metadata. The verb 'modifier' and resource 'tour' are specific. Sibling tools include create/delete/list/download, so update is distinct, though no explicit differentiation is needed.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., upload_tour) would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the upload action but omits side effects (e.g., whether existing tours are overwritten), authentication needs, error handling, or file size limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose (French sentence). The parameter list is clearly formatted with bullet points, providing essential info without verbosity.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about input validation (e.g., supported GPX versions), rate limits, or post-upload results. It adequately documents parameters but misses operational details for a mutation tool.

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 0%, and the description adds meaning for each parameter: explains gpx_content as XML text, lists valid sport values, marks tour_name as optional, and defines data_type options (gpx/fit). This adds value beyond the minimal 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 the tool uploads a GPX file as a recorded activity on Komoot, specifying the main verb ('Uploader') and resource (GPX fichier). However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like import_gpx_route, which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_gpx_route or create_planned_tour). There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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