maps_direction_driving

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 lists supported features (waypoints, strategy, plate avoidance, avoidance areas) but these merely restate what the schema already documents. It does not disclose expected behavior like what is returned, error conditions, or any constraints or side effects of the driving route calculation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerating the most relevant capabilities. It wastes no words, though '等' is a slight filler that leaves the list open-ended.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It conveys the main purpose and key features, but it does not describe what the response contains, and it provides no usage context relative to the sibling direction tools. The rich schema compensates for parameter-level completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema describes every parameter, including formats and option values. The description adds little semantics beyond listing four feature categories already visible in the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states '驾车路径规划' (driving route planning), identifying both the specific action and the resource. The '驾车' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_direction_walking, maps_bicycling, and maps_direction_transit_integrated without ambiguity.

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 driving use from the name and description, but provides no guidance such as 'use walking/bicycling/transit tools for non-driving routes' or any conditions that would select this tool.

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