Notizie Infomobilita

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is real-time and enumerates the alert categories, which tells the agent this is a read of current conditions. It does not address rate limits, update cadence, pagination, or volume of results, leaving behavioral gaps for a live-feed 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the one actionable parameter hint. No filler, no repetition of the title, every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and with one optional boolean parameter the surface area is small. The description covers purpose, content scope, and parameter behavior adequately; the only meaningful omission is sibling routing among the three infomobilità tools.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does so clearly by explaining that solo_lavori=True switches the result from live alerts to scheduled works, which fully characterizes the flag's effect beyond its boolean type and default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restituisce le notizie dettagliate di infomobilità') and enumerates the content covered (circolazione, ritardi, guasti, scioperi), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The word 'dettagliate' implicitly contrasts with the sibling titoli_infomobilita/ticker_infomobilita, but it never names them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Provides a concrete usage instruction for the flag ('Impostare solo_lavori=True per ottenere l'elenco dei lavori programmati'), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over titoli_infomobilita or ticker_infomobilita, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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