import_gpx_route

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.