septa_bus_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by listing return fields (GPS coordinates, vehicle ID, direction, destination, delay), which is especially important given the absence of an output schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, but this is not critical for a read-only data retrieval.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action ('Get real-time bus/trolley positions') and then immediately specifying the return content. Every word contributes value 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers both the required parameter and the full set of return fields. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 single 'route' parameter is fully described in the input schema with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely refers to 'route' generically and does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 'Get real-time bus/trolley positions for a SEPTA (Philadelphia) route,' clearly identifying the action, resource, and geographic scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like septa_train_view (trains vs. buses/trolleys) and septa_alerts (positions vs. alerts).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch live vehicle positions for a SEPTA route) and implicitly excludes train routes by specifying 'bus/trolley.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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