route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it enumerates the return payload (length, straight-line length, narrowest free width and position, highest step, waypoints, image) and discloses the cross-region failure behavior and its explanation. It omits cost/performance traits and whether the route search is complete, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return contract, then the min_width use case, then the failure mode. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the return-value enumeration is long.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully covers the return values and the cross-region failure case. However, eight of nine parameters remain opaque, and an agent cannot tell how cell, agent_height, agent_radius, or max_slope_deg affect routing without guessing.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains min_width; cell, names, max_step, agent_height, agent_radius, max_slope_deg, start, and end are left with no meaning beyond their names, which is a substantial gap for a 9-param tool.

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 and resource with scope: 'Shortest walkable route between two world points.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like walkable_map (a map, not a path), line_of_sight, and check_passages, which measure different properties.

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?

Gives an explicit use case for the min_width parameter ('can a group or a wide vehicle go from A to B?'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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