stl_gtfs_stop

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

The description clarifies that the input can be either a stop_code or stop_id and that the output includes both identifiers, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe error handling or behavior when the stop is not found. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list arguments. No fluff or redundancy.

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 includes what the tool returns, which is helpful. It omits the snapshot parameter, but that is optional. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is mostly adequate, though the missing parameter explanation is a gap.

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 description explains the 'stop' parameter (stop_code or stop_id) but does not explain the 'snapshot' parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so this is the only source. It covers 1 of 2 parameters (50% coverage), adding meaningful info for the main parameter but leaving the optional one unexplained.

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 returns a single stop's details including both identifiers, parent station, accessibility flags, coordinates, and routes. It differentiates from sibling tools like stl_gtfs_stops (plural) and stl_gtfs_stop_resolve (which likely resolves an ID).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use stl_gtfs_stops for multiple stops or stl_gtfs_stop_resolve for ID resolution. The description only implies single-stop usage.

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