list_crossing_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the return is a markdown-formatted list and mentions ctx for logging, but it does not explicitly disclose whether it is side-effect-free or requires special permissions. The read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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 short and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. However, it redundantly repeats 'List all crossing points' in the first two sentences, which adds unnecessary words.

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 it is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, filter capability, and return format. It could explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, but the verb 'List' makes it clear enough.

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 schema already describes zone_id with 100% coverage (identical text). The description repeats this information without adding new semantics. It also lists 'ctx' as an argument not present in the schema, which could confuse agents.

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 'List all crossing points' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_crossing_point by highlighting the list scope and optional zone_id filter.

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 usage for listing all crossing points and mentions the optional zone_id filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_crossing_point or when not to use it.

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