Apple Maps Get Directions Strict

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent; the description adds a useful operational behavior: failing closed if the Maps helper is unavailable. This goes beyond the annotations and shapes expectations, even though it does not specify the exact error shape.

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?

One concise sentence with the action front-loaded and no unnecessary words. The fail-closed behavior is appended cleanly without bloat.

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?

The output schema exists and the three parameters are simple enough for basic calls, but the description omits parameter format guidance and does not differentiate this tool from maps_get_directions. That is adequate for a low-complexity tool, but not fully 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% and the description gives no detail on origin/destination format or allowed transport values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond them and does not compensate for the missing 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 states a specific action and resource: getting directions via Apple Maps, and adds a distinctive failure-mode qualifier ('fail closed if the Maps helper is unavailable'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling maps_get_directions, so the strict/non-strict distinction is left mostly to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over maps_get_directions or maps_open_directions_in_maps. 'Fail closed' describes behavior, not selection criteria, so the agent is left to infer when this strict variant should be preferred.

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