stl_rt_reference

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds content details but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover, making a 3 appropriate.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the tool's output and its purpose. It is tightly written with no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a parameterless static reference, the description fully explains what the tool returns and why it exists. The mention of a 'flat table' and 'enum value mappings' gives a sufficient picture of the output, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 provides a flat table of GTFS-Realtime field mappings and enum values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stl_rt_decode or stl_rt_health, which serve different runtime or diagnostic purposes.

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 identifies this as the porting reference for the on-device decoder, giving a concrete use case. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context of being a static reference for porting is clear enough for a developer to know when to use it.

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