snap_to_roads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the snapping action and use case, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, authorization requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted 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 the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It provides purpose and a use case, but does not explain the output format, error conditions, or limitations beyond what is captured in the schema (e.g., min/max items). It is sufficient for basic understanding but could be more thorough.

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% (both 'path' and 'interpolate' have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add substantial additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('snap') and resource ('GPS coordinates to the nearest road'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also provides a use case (cleaning noisy GPS data) which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like reverse_geocode or get_directions.

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 explicitly states the tool is useful for cleaning noisy GPS data from vehicle tracking systems, indicating a clear context for use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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