campus_map

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the scope of what is returned (addresses, map images, panorama links, transit schedules), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it never states that this is a passive read-only lookup, nor how media or schedules are formatted and whether they can be stale.

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?

One compact sentence with the topic front-loaded and no filler. The dense enumeration of four content categories is efficient, though it would read more scannably if slightly structured rather than strung together with '、'.

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 single-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the breadth of returned content, letting an agent judge whether to call it. Only minor gaps remain, such as the form of the images/panorama links and freshness of transit schedules.

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 100% and the single optional 'campus' parameter already documents the 云谷/云栖/铜鉴湖 fragments and the default of returning all campuses. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its content: three-campus addresses, official map images, 720yun panoramas, and arrival transportation including metro/bus first and last train times. That is well beyond a restatement of the name 'campus_map'. It lacks an action verb and never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like campus_housing, campus_services, or contact_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer from the content list that this is the tool for physical campus location and travel questions, and must guess on its own whether contact_info or campus_services overlaps.

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