reduce_lanes_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that edges still exist and only lane count changes, that trip files can be reused, and provides examples of reduction behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens if reduce_by exceeds existing lanes, whether the operation is reversible, or any resource/permission requirements.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples, making it easy to scan. It is detailed but not excessively verbose. The examples are particularly helpful. However, the length could be slightly reduced by merging some duplicate points (e.g., the workflow note appears twice).

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 covers usage and modes well but lacks information about the output (e.g., what files are produced, return value). With no output schema, the agent may not know what to expect after invocation. Error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid road name, insufficient lanes) are also not addressed.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains reduce_by and remain_lanes with examples, gives default for output_dir, and clarifies optional parameters like route_file (can be reused). However, some parameters like edge_ids and route_file receive minimal explanation beyond the args list.

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's purpose: 'Reduce lanes on road segments' and distinguishes between two modes (relative and absolute). It is specific about the resource (road segments) and verb (reduce lanes), and the context of sibling tools (e.g., edge_edit_tool, speed_limit_edit_tool) implies this is unique for lane reduction.

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 provides explicit usage context: it recommends Mode 1 over Mode 2, suggests using reference_location and radius_km for localized reduction, and gives a workflow hint (reduce_lanes → sumo_runner with reusable trip file). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if lanes cannot be reduced below 1) or provide alternatives beyond the workflow suggestion.

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