ptv_stops_on_route

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key parameter is optional but unexplained), or what the response contains. The lack of any behavioral traits beyond the basic action leaves the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While conciseness is generally positive, in this case it sacrifices necessary detail, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should offer more context about the return format, parameter meanings, and how this tool fits into the broader PTV set. It does not, leaving significant gaps that an agent would need to infer or guess.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. While route_id and route_type are somewhat self-explanatory, route_type's numeric values (e.g., PTV types) remain ambiguous. The api_key parameter is not described at all. The description provides no value beyond the parameter names.

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 the action ('get') and the resource ('stops on a PTV route'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ptv_departures or ptv_search, which could also involve stops or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain what route_type values mean (e.g., train vs tram) or mention any prerequisites like needing an API key. The description offers no contextual usage hints.

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