snap_to_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it snaps to the nearest graph node and defines nodes as intersections or stops, but it omits critical behavioral details such as what happens if no graph is loaded, whether there is a search radius, or how coordinates are validated. This lack of error/prerequisite context makes it insufficient for an agent to anticipate failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks important context such as the prerequisite of loading a graph and the semantics of the 'kind' parameter. For a simple snapping operation it is adequate, but it could be more complete for agent decision-making.

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 only mentions 'a coordinate', which loosely maps to lat/lon but provides no explanation of the optional 'kind' parameter or its default behavior. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's raw property names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Snap' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a coordinate to the nearest loaded graph node (intersection or stop)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geocode and reverse_geocode, which convert addresses/coordinates, and find_nearby, which likely searches for points of interest.

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 phrase 'loaded graph node' implies that a graph must be loaded first (e.g., via load_area), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geocode or reverse_geocode. There is no mention of exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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