compute_geodesic

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

Discloses key behavior: computes great-circle distance, ignores route, uses sphere model, output in nautical miles. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it provides the essential behavioral context. Does not mention coordinate validity or precision, but output schema likely covers return format.

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?

Single sentence that is tightly written with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys purpose, unit, and a key differentiator.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core functionality and distinguishes from siblings. Minor omission: no mention of coordinate system or valid ranges, but these are common defaults.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. It implies start and end points but does not specify coordinate format (e.g., decimal degrees) or units. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but additional detail would improve semantic clarity.

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?

Clearly states it computes geodesic great-circle distance in nautical miles, and explicitly distinguishes from route-based calculations. The verb 'compute' and resource 'geodesic' are specific, and the note 'ignores route' differentiates it from sibling compute_route.

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?

Implicitly guides usage by stating 'ignores route', indicating it is for shortest distance on a sphere, not for route planning. However, it could explicitly contrast with compute_distance or compute_route; the current description is clear enough for an informed agent.

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