tods_get_vehicle_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It implies a read-only query over local files but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when files are missing, filter-combination semantics, or what the result looks like. Naming the two source files is the only added behavioral signal.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and data source front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a query returns (assignment records? counts?) and whether feed_path must point at a directory or zip. The schema covers the parameter side, but the return-value gap leaves it only minimally complete.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reiterates date/block filtering but adds no format, syntax, or combination guidance beyond the schema's '(YYYYMMDD)' note.

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?

States a specific verb (queries) and resource (fleet vehicle assignments to blocks and dates) and even names the source files, so the agent knows it reads assignment data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like tods_get_runs or tods_get_deadheads, which also appear to be feed-reading tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus tods_get_runs, tods_get_deadheads, or tods_inspect_feed. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of which filter combinations are meaningful. The usage context must be inferred from the name alone.

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