walking_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides walking navigation information and estimated time, which is useful but lacks details on return structure, errors, or multipath behavior. Adequate for a simple route tool.

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 action and outputs. No wasted words or redundant detail.

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 simple 3-parameter tool and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and expected outputs. However, it could explicitly mention multipath behavior or coordinate format, though these are covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already stated, and the mention of '预计时间' is output-related. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb '计算' and resource '两点间的步行路径', clearly stating it calculates walking routes and provides navigation info and estimated time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like driving_route and transit_route.

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 use for walking routes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus driving_route or transit_route. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the '步行' terminology provides clear context.

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