suggest_track_road_candidates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful side-effect guarantee about not selecting ways, but it does not disclose how suggestions are computed, what inputs take precedence, or any behavioral details beyond 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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-sized for a tool with six parameters and multiple possible input sources.

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 output schema may cover return values, and annotations cover side-effect safety, but the description leaves major invocation questions unanswered: Which of gpx_xml, gpx_path, segment_id, or selection_id should be provided? Are they mutually exclusive or combined? What does 'nearby' depend on? This is insufficient for correct tool use.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the six parameters (limit, gpx_xml, gpx_path, segment_id, selection_id, search_radius_m). An agent gets no guidance on which input source to supply or how the parameters relate to 'nearby'.

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 action ('Suggest'), a specific resource ('nearby OSM highway ways'), and an explicit non-behavior ('without selecting or modifying any way'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create selections or apply edits.

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 phrase 'without selecting or modifying any way' implies this is for read-only candidate suggestions, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like match_track_selection or preview_track_road_edit. No direct sibling or exclusion strategy is named.

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