get_roads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns GeoJSON but does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects like file writing (via output_path). The implied read-only nature from the verb 'get' is not explicitly confirmed.

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?

Two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description is efficient. 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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the behavior of the output_path parameter (save vs return), the limit parameter, or return structure beyond 'GeoJSON format'. An agent may miss important usage details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'filterable by road type' but the schema already documents road_types with enum values. The description does not add syntax, format, or interaction details for any parameter.

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 '指定した矩形範囲内の道路ネットワークをGeoJSON形式で取得します。道路タイプでフィルタリング可能です。' clearly states the tool retrieves road networks within a bounding box in GeoJSON format with optional filtering by road type. This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like get_amenities or get_buildings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools), nor any context on when it is appropriate or not. The description only states what it does, without usage recommendations or exclusions.

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