get_drive_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply read-only behavior via 'Returns,' but it gives no details about potential limitations, such as the need for historical GPS data, the impact of 'simplify' on the result, or any rate restrictions. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no annotation context.

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 a single sentence of 11 words: 'Returns the GPS path for drives in a given timeframe.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is an excellent example of concise, structured writing.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should ideally clarify what a 'GPS path' entails (e.g., array of lat/lng points, whether it includes timestamps). While the parameter schema handles the inputs, the description alone is somewhat thin for an agent to fully understand the return shape and edge cases. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters (to, vin, from, details, simplify). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema; it only mentions 'timeframe' which maps to from/to. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to repeat them, so a 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 function: 'Returns the GPS path for drives in a given timeframe.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('GPS path'), and scope ('drives in a given timeframe'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_drives (drive summaries) and get_location (current position).

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 when to use this tool (when you need the GPS route for drives over a time period), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it does not mention that get_location should be used for the current position or that get_drives returns summaries. This is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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