get_ride_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'get the status,' which implies a read operation but does not explain what the status contains, whether authentication is required, if it is real-time, or any potential error conditions. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no redundancy or fluff, making it exceptionally efficient for a tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description provides the minimal necessary purpose. However, it lacks contextual details such as what the status report includes, whether it requires an active ride, or how it relates to the sibling 'status' tool. The absence of output schema makes the missing return-value description more noticeable, though it is still a borderline adequate description for a basic status check.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no further parameter information because there are none to describe. The score remains at the baseline.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'status of your current or most recent Lyft ride,' which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'status,' which could plausibly cover the same functionality, so no explicit distinction is provided.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases beyond the basic scope of 'current or most recent ride,' leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.

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