plan_route_map

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns both visual timeline and text, shows stations, times, line colors, transfer points, accepts station names or coordinates. It could mention potential limitations like API availability or language 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 well-structured and concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, it adequately explains return format (visual timeline and text) and covers all parameters. Could briefly mention error handling or supported regions, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by explaining 'from' and 'to' can be station names or 'lat,lon' coordinates, and routeIndex selects itinerary (0=best). This goes beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 'Plan a rail/subway journey and render it as a Yahoo!乗換案内-style vertical timeline' with specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes from sibling 'plan_journey' by emphasizing the visual output.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Prefer this over plan_journey when a visual route is helpful', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains default best itinerary and routeIndex for alternatives.

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