track_all_ferries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' reasonably signals a read-only operation, but the description does not mention cache behavior even though use_cache defaults to true, which may affect how 'current' the positions are. It also does not describe response format or error behavior, but it does not misrepresent the core action.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, immediately communicates the tool's purpose, and every word carries meaningful scope information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: positions of all Boston Harbor ferries. The schema handles the cache flag. A minor gap is the lack of output shape detail, but this is not critical at this complexity.

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%, and the only parameter, use_cache, is already documented with its type, default, and meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema fully covers it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('current positions'), and a clear scope ('all Boston Harbor commuter ferries'). This distinguishes it from singular track_ferry and static list_ferries without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'all' and 'current positions' implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as track_ferry for a single ferry or list_ferries for non-position data. Usage context is inferred, not stated.

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