match_track_selection

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

The description adds a behavioral dependency—the operation uses a 'configured local Valhalla'—which goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like failure modes or what transformations occur, and the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first, and the remaining words add meaningful scope and context.

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 is adequate for a simple read-only tool, especially since an output schema exists and annotations cover safety. But it leaves key gaps: where selection_id comes from, how to choose costing, and what the local Valhalla configuration implies for invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the parameters but only loosely relates selection_id to a GPX subsection. The costing parameter is entirely unexplained, including valid values or the meaning of the 'auto' default.

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 states a specific operation, 'Map-match', on a clear resource, 'a selected GPX subsection', and adds useful context with 'using the configured local Valhalla'. It is semantically distinct from siblings like analyze_gpx_track or create_track_selection, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to map-match a selected GPX subsection) but gives no explicit when-not or alternative guidance. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as creating a selection first with create_track_selection.

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