be_get_vehicle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get details,' which suggests a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in providing a complete understanding of the tool's operation and constraints.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'vehicle_id' refers to a 'Belgian train vehicle ID,' which clarifies the semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Vehicle Id' title. However, it does not provide format examples or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action ('Get details') and resource ('Belgian train vehicle by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like be_get_departures or be_search_stations that handle different operations. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 usage when details about a specific Belgian train vehicle are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like be_search_connections or ch_get_departures. No exclusions or clear context for tool selection are provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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