get_waterways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is read-only ('取得します' - retrieve), which is safe. It mentions the output format (GeoJSON) and includes types of water bodies. However, it does not disclose details like rate limits, bounding box coordinate system, handling of limit parameter, or side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every part of the sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 7 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and format but lacks details on output structure, parameter defaults (e.g., limit not mentioned), and usage constraints. The schema covers parameter definitions well, but overall contextual completeness is moderate - enough for a simple read tool but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some context by explaining the bounding rectangle and that the results include water area data, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. No parameter examples or usage constraints are given.

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 tool retrieves water area/river data within a specified rectangular range in GeoJSON format. It lists types (rivers, lakes, seas, canals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other spatial features like amenities, buildings, etc. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where other tools might be more appropriate or exclude scenarios. The only implicit guidance comes from the tool name and sibling names, but the description itself lacks any usage context or comparison.

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