waze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions operations and required parameters but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, response formats, or authentication needs. The implicit data-retrieval nature is not explicitly confirmed, leaving ambiguity around side effects and data freshness.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the tool's purpose and then using a bulleted list to enumerate operations and their required parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary verbiage.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and invocation details, but it only provides a high-level operation list and required parameter names. It does not describe what each operation returns, coordinate formats, or potential error conditions, making it insufficient for fully reliable invocation.

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?

The schema's 'args' field is generic, but the description lists required parameters for each operation (e.g., bottom_left, top_right, source_coordinates, destination_coordinates). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not define parameter types or formats (e.g., coordinate representation, query string), leaving some semantics underspecified.

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 provides Waze data and enumerates four specific operations (alerts_and_jams, driving_directions, venues, autocomplete), each with a brief descriptor. This distinguishes it from the many sibling search tools and makes the purpose immediately evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and notably there is a sibling tool named 'driving_directions' that overlaps with one of the waze operations. No exclusions or criteria are given to help an agent choose between them.

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