exit_vehicle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without adding any details about preconditions (e.g., must be in a vehicle), side effects, or failure modes. No information is given about what happens if the agent is not in a vehicle or whether the action has any cost or delay.

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 a single short sentence that directly states the action. It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter tool and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose. It could slightly improve by explicitly stating the precondition of being inside a vehicle, but the phrase 'you are in' already implies this context. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand when to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter context is required.

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 a specific action ('leave') and resource ('vehicle'), with a clear qualifying context ('you are in'). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like drive_to and walk_to, which involve moving toward or operating a vehicle.

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: use this when you want to exit the vehicle you are currently in. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the simplicity of the tool makes this somewhat acceptable. It lacks any exclusions or conditionals.

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