neshan_vrp_logistic

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It only describes the function without side effects or constraints.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key purpose. However, the line break after 'optimization.' is unnecessary and slightly disrupts flow. Otherwise efficient.

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?

With 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should explain return value structure or provide examples. It only mentions 'route results' but lacks detail on format, pagination, or error handling. Adequate but incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a high-level overview but does not deepen understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 specific verbs ('Solve a Vehicle Routing Problem') and clearly states the resource (logistics/delivery optimization) and objective (minimizing distance/duration). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on multi-vehicle VRP, contrasting with TSP or simpler routing tools found in sibling list.

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 implies usage for logistics optimization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like `neshan_tsp` for single-vehicle problems. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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