Stato Treno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuine behavioral trait — that origine/data_partenza are auto-derived from numero_treno when omitted — but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior when the train number is unknown or ambiguous.

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: the first front-loads the tool's purpose and output scope, the second carries the only non-obvious parameter rule. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, yet its enumeration is consistent rather than contradictory. The remaining gap is behavioral failure modes and the distinction from sibling train tools, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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, and it does for the two optional parameters by explaining their auto-resolution semantics. numero_treno is self-evident, and format expectations (e.g. valid train number ranges) remain unstated, keeping this below a 5.

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 lo andamento e lo stato in tempo reale di un treno') and enumerates exactly what comes back: delay, last detection, running status, and full stop list. It is far more specific than siblings like cerca_numero_treno, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate against itinerario_treno_canvas.

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 conditional clause explains when the optional parameters can be omitted and how they are resolved, which is useful operational guidance. However, there is no indication of when to prefer this tool over cerca_numero_treno or itinerario_treno_canvas, so the usage context is only implied.

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