scheduling_get_kpi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavior disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but there is no mention of side effects, return format, data freshness, or any operational constraints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by illustrative examples. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple fetch), the description is largely sufficient. It names the primary outputs but does not detail the full return structure or caveats, which could be helpful since there is no output schema. However, the examples cover the key KPI categories.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. This matches the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 action (fetch) and resource (key performance indicators), with concrete examples (vehicle status, total departures, punctuality rate). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on routes, gantt data, optimization, trends, and plans.

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 implies usage for retrieving KPIs, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like scheduling_get_trends or scheduling_get_route_details. There is no 'when to use vs. not use' guidance, but the examples give a general sense of the tool's purpose.

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