reunion_list_car_jaune_routes

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

The description discloses the data source (GTFS routes.txt) and exactly what fields are returned (route_id, short name, long name, route_type, brand color, official URL). There is no annotation to contradict, and the tool is clearly read-only with no hidden side effects.

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 — two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and data source; the second lists return fields and a related tool. Every word earns its place with no 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and where to go next (reunion_search_car_jaune_stops). It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the tool needs no parameter explanation. The description adds value by defining the scope and output, earning a baseline score of 4.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bus routes of the Car Jaune network'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from related tools by suggesting use of reunion_search_car_jaune_stops for finding stops.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (list all routes) and indirectly guides when to use a sibling tool (find stops via reunion_search_car_jaune_stops). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a zero-param list tool, this is sufficient.

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