dast_flight_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the returned data (position, speed, altitude, heading, aircraft, status, scheduled times) and the precondition that departure/arrival/date must be complete. It does not mention failure behavior, data freshness, or source reliability, which prevents a 5.

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 long but each sentence carries distinct guidance: output fields, trigger intents, missing-parameter handling, sibling routing, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and output list; the length is justified by the tool's need to disambiguate many flight-related intents.

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 4-parameter read-only flight lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, output fields, when to use, alternatives, and exclusions. An agent has enough information to decide to call it, assemble parameters, and anticipate the returned 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has type, format, and example. The description adds no meaning per parameter beyond reinforcing that all four are required; the missing-parameter guidance is useful usage context but not new parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('查询') and a precise resource ('航班飞行轨迹及当前位置相关信息'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from nearby tools by listing what it is not for (airport flight lists, comfort, delay probability, weather, pricing, booking), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It states explicit trigger scenarios (`用户询问某个航班现在飞到哪里、实时位置、经纬度、高度、速度、航向、航迹`), prescribes behavior when required segments are missing (`应先追问或由系统补齐`), and routes other intents like gates, terminals, check-in, baggage, times, and status to a different flight-number query tool. A negative list further prevents misuse.

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