mbta_get_amtrak_trains_geojson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns GeoJSON-formatted train data but does not disclose other traits like data freshness, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences (14 words) and front-loads the key information: action, resource, and format. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the output format and use case. It could mention the relationship to 'mbta_get_amtrak_trains' for added clarity, but overall it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers 100%. According to the instructions, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 it retrieves Amtrak trains as GeoJSON for mapping, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Amtrak trains as GeoJSON'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mbta_get_amtrak_trains' by specifying the output format.

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 mapping applications but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'mbta_get_amtrak_trains' (which likely returns a different format). No when-not or alternative tool references are given.

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