pulse_map_route

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden but only implies read-only behavior via "find". It doesn't state what happens when no verified route exists (error vs empty), what "verified" means, or whether the result includes intermediate hops.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the direction of travel front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and usage gaps remain.

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 3-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers neither failure modes, prerequisites, nor the app_id parameter. An agent would have to guess at the calling conditions and return shape.

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%, so the description must compensate: it does explain that "start" is a mapped screen and "target" may be either a screen or an anchor label, which meaningfully disambiguates two of three params. "app_id" is never explained, leaving one required parameter opaque.

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 gives a specific verb ("find") and resource ("shortest verified route") with explicit endpoints ("from a mapped screen to a screen or anchor label"), which distinguishes it from map-mutation siblings like pulse_map_record_transition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or clarifying how routing relates to pulse_map_get.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the map must first be populated via pulse_map_record_screen/record_transition), and no exclusions or alternatives among the 16 siblings. The agent must infer that this is a path-query tool used after mapping.

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