get-stations-code-in-city

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-style lookup and that the result is a list containing multiple station entries, but it does not address edge cases like invalid city names, no matching stations, or exact-match behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then states the result shape. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately defines the return value as a list of station names and station_code values. It is slightly limited by not covering no-results or invalid-input behavior, but it is sufficient for basic 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 single city parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples, so the schema already provides the needed meaning. The description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that a Chinese city name is used.

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 a specific verb (查询), resource (all stations in a city), and output (station names and station_code as a list). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get-station-code-of-citys.

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 about when to use this tool instead of its siblings. With get-station-code-of-citys being nearly identical in name, the agent has no basis for choosing between them.

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