plan_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default modes behavior and the prerequisite dependency on a loaded area graph. It does not discuss side effects, errors, or data mutability, but for a routing tool this is moderately transparent. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, parameter behavior, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to adjust modes, and the required prior call. It does not detail coordinate constraints or error handling, but these are less critical for basic usage. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 meaningful semantics for the 'modes' parameter: it specifies the default (walk+transit) and the way to request pedestrian-only. The latitude/longitude parameters are self-explanatory from their names. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('multimodal route on the loaded area graph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_area or list_transit_options by focusing on route planning.

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?

It provides a key usage precondition: 'Requires a prior successful load_area call.' It also gives parameter usage advice (default modes and how to request pedestrian-only). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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