amap_direction_driving

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides substantial transparency by listing return data (total distance, estimated time, steps, tolls, traffic light count) and elaborates on strategy semantics (e.g., strategy 3 means avoid congestion by not taking expressways). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only route planning tool.

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 concise: two sentences front-load the core purpose and output, followed by a compact strategy breakdown. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately scoped for the tool's complexity.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining the primary inputs (origin/destination) and output fields, but it overlooks secondary parameters like waypoints, avoidroad, and avoidpolygons. These are left entirely to the schema. The description captures the core route planning behavior but doesn't fully cover all use cases or parameter interactions, leaving some gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of extra context by re-explaining the strategy codes and noting that origin/destination support coordinates or addresses, but this largely duplicates the schema. It does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 as '驾车路径规划' (driving route planning) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (walking, transit, bicycling) by explicitly focusing on driving and lists key outputs like distance, time, steps, toll fees, and traffic lights.

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 driving route planning but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as walking or transit. It mentions input format (coordinates or addresses) and strategy options, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. Since the tool name and context signal driving, usage is implied rather than stated.

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