amap_direction_transit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists the return contents (transfer plan with details) but does not disclose potential caveats like cross-city support (cityd parameter), the effect of strategy, error behavior, or any limitations. The output list is helpful but insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then details the return contents. It is concise and free of waste.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level view of the return plan but omits explanations for optional parameters (date, time, cityd, strategy) and potential edge cases. It is adequate but lacks depth for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the main parameters (origin, destination, city) but adds no additional meaning 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 it performs bus/subway route planning and returns a transit transfer plan including walking segments, bus/subway lines, transfer count, duration, and fare. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools for driving, walking, and bicycling.

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 transit routing by naming '公交/地铁路径规划', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like driving or walking. It mentions required inputs (origin, destination, city) but provides no exclusions or comparisons.

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