net_convert

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

Discloses conversion details (road type filtering, UTM projection) and consequence of omitting bbox (roads extending beyond area). No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden, but it omits side effects like file overwriting or error scenarios.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (step, description, parameters, returns). Every sentence adds value, though some could be merged. No redundant information.

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?

Covers pipeline context, parameter usage, and return value. Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of output schema, the description is complete enough for agent use. Missing error handling or performance notes, but not critical.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with a dedicated PARAMETERS section explaining osm_file, city_en, and bbox. output_dir is not explained, though it has a default. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it converts OSM data to SUMO network format, identifies its role as step 2/5, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like osm_extract and trip_generate.

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?

Provides explicit pipeline context (previous/next steps), explains when to use bbox parameter (to trim roads), and mentions auto-derivation for city_en. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid using this tool or alternatives.

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