maps_direction_walking

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 two behavioral traits: indoor routing support and returning multiple alternative routes, but it does not state that the operation is read-only or describe response behavior, errors, or limitations. These are meaningful additions, though coverage is partial.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by capability highlights. The version parenthetical '路径规划 2.0，v5 接口' is technical noise for an AI agent, but the overall size is appropriate and there is no repetition of schema content.

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?

All seven parameters are documented in the schema, and the description supplies the operation mode plus the two notable optional capabilities. No output schema is present, but route-planning intent and the show_fields parameter make the expected response reasonably clear; a note on returned route data would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description's 'indoor routing' and 'multiple alternative routes' map to isindoor and alternative_route, reinforcing tool-level intent but adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 identifies a walking route planning operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools for driving, bicycling, and transit by specifying '步行'. It also adds capability context with indoor routing and multiple alternatives, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 walking mode is stated, implying use when a pedestrian route is needed, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative sibling tools. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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