get_train_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only via 'get' but does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-destructive, or any potential side effects. Minimal transparency for an unannotated 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?

Single sentence with a colon-delimited list is efficient and front-loaded. Every word contributes, though the list format could be more structured. No wasted language.

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?

The description mentions what information is returned (schedules, states, cargo) but does not explain how parameters like force, surface, and limit affect results. Since all params are optional with defaults, the agent may not understand filtering capabilities. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, each parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is 3 since the schema already documents force, limit, surface adequately.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'trains', and specifies the aspects covered: schedules, states, cargo. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_logistics_info' by focusing on trains specifically, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_logistics_info' or 'get_game_status'. With 18 sibling tools, the agent receives no context for selection.

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