map_direction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses core behavior (returns distance, duration, navigation), but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is not contradictory and provides basic transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value—first on modes, second on returns and format. No superfluous text.

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 complexity (multiple modes, platforms, coordinate format) and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It mentions 'segment navigation' but does not detail the structure or coordinate system (e.g., WGS84 vs BD09). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions coordinate format ('经度,纬度') which is also in schema descriptions. No additional context for parameters like city or platform is provided.

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 the tool's purpose: route planning between two points, supporting multiple travel modes (driving, walking, transit, riding), and specifies the return of total distance, total duration, and turn-by-turn navigation. It distinguishes from siblings like map_distance by implying full route information rather than just distance.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies route planning but lacks guidance on scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases. A moderate score reflects this gap.

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