get_train_run_plan

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 only states that it is a query (조회) and describes parameters, but does not disclose any limitations, side effects, permissions, or whether results are real-time or planned. It does not contradict annotations (none exist) but fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the purpose and follows with parameter explanations. It is efficient and structured, though the inline parameter list could be seen as slightly dense. It earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers parameter semantics well, but it does not clarify parameter combination rules (e.g., whether run_ymd and run_ymd_gte/lte are mutually exclusive) or requiredness (all are optional per schema). The output schema exists, so return format is covered. Overall, it is adequate for a basic query tool but leaves some ambiguities for an agent.

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 description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explicitly explaining each parameter's meaning and format (run_ymd as YYYYMMDD, run_ymd_gte/lte as date range, station names with examples). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, which only provides default empty strings and titles.

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 clear purpose: querying passenger train operation plans, listing specific fields (train number, departure/arrival station, planned times). It is specific about the resource and operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_train_run_info or get_train_run_history, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, which is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functionality.

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