route_osrm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns distance/duration and can add geometry to the project, and notes the best-effort nature of community-run demos. However, it omits details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication, which are relevant for an external service.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys key information without redundancy. It uses clear formatting for parameter references. A minor improvement would be to separate parameter details and return behavior clearly, but it remains readable.

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 the tool's reliance on an external service (OSRM), the description should mention prerequisites (e.g., internet access, self-hosting setup) and potential failure modes. It covers core functionality but lacks completeness for robust usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It covers waypoints, profile, base_url, and add_to_project, but misses the 'layer_name' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. The description provides useful context for the covered parameters but is incomplete.

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 'Compute a route between waypoints via OSRM', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'route_valhalla' that use a different routing engine, and details return values and optional side effects.

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 explains waypoints requirement (>=2), profile options with defaults and service caveats (no SLA for community runs), and the ability to use a custom base_url. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this over alternative routing tools (e.g., route_valhalla, route_matrix), leaving the choice implied.

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