get_waypoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns full details and lists a few fields, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling behavior. The description minimally describes output but not side effects or constraints.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output details without any waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (altitude, GPS coordinates, description). However, the phrase 'full details' is vague and could be more precise about all possible fields (e.g., name, type). Still, it provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Waypoint ID from Camptocamp'; it merely says 'by its ID'. No extra context for parameter usage.

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 specifies the verb ('Get full details'), the resource ('specific waypoint from Camptocamp.org'), and the key data fields ('altitude, GPS coordinates, and description'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_outing and search_waypoints by focusing on a single waypoint by ID.

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 use when retrieving details of a known waypoint by its ID, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_waypoints (which might be used for searching by criteria). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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