maps_directions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that origin may be omitted for browser/device location, but doesn't mention the default travel mode (transit), potential side effects of launching an external app, or lack of return value. Adds one behavioral nuance but remains sparse.

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?

Two sentences totaling 23 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No waste.

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 open-directions tool, the description covers purpose and a key origin behavior. However, it doesn't mention the default travel mode (transit) from schema, whether it returns any data, or how to handle invalid destinations. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains origin's optionality and its behavior when omitted, but adds nothing about destination or mode beyond what schema names and enum values already imply. Partial compensation.

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 the specific verb 'Open' and resource 'Google Maps directions', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like maps_search and maps_show. It states the primary action directly.

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 opening directions and notes that origin can be omitted, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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