neshan_map_matching

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states 'snap' without detailing output (e.g., matched coordinates, segment IDs), error handling, or constraints (e.g., minimum points, sampling rate). Minimal transparency for a potentially complex operation.

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 one-sentence description is concise but omits critical details. Every sentence should earn its place; while succinct, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify return values or behavior. It fails to mention what the tool outputs (e.g., matched path points) or any important caveats, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is clear. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (snapping GPS points onto the road network) and the resource (a sequence of GPS points). It distinguishes map matching from sibling tools like directions or geocoding, though it could specify the output type (e.g., matched points).

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 on when to use map matching versus alternatives like direction or TSP. The description does not mention typical use cases (e.g., noisy GPS data) or prerequisites (e.g., point format requirements), leaving the agent to infer context.

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