get_urban_movement

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results include step-by-step text (mvContDtl) and an image (imgPath), and provides detailed answer guidelines on managing data recency notifications, tone variation, and empty-result handling. This exceeds typical disclosure and is directly actionable for the agent.

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 core tool description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The appended answer-guidelines section is lengthy but highly relevant for consistent output handling, so every part earns its place. Could be trimmed, but the structure is logical and clear.

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 complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter roles, alternatives, and even response formatting rules. It leaves nothing essential unexplained for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain every parameter's meaning, especially next_station with its purpose of specifying platform direction and the instruction to use the same-line next station. However, it doesn't define valid operator codes or line formats, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: '도시철도 교통약자 출입구→승강장 이동경로(동선) 조회' — an explicit statement of what is queried. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_urban_accessibility by naming it as an alternative for elevator-specific routes.

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?

Each parameter is explained with its role (station_name, operator, line, next_station) and the special use of next_station to specify platform direction. It explicitly names get_urban_accessibility as the alternative tool for elevator detail, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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