amap_direction_walking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns total distance, estimated time, and step-by-step directions, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether origin/destination should be addresses, coordinates, or specific formats, nor does it state any safety or side-effect aspects (though none are expected).

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately lists the key return items. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the main return fields (distance, time, directions). However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter format details, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, for a simple route-planning tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 already describes both parameters ('起点' and '终点') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or how to specify locations, so it does not go beyond what the schema 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 '步行路径规划' (walking route planning) and explicitly lists the return content: total distance, estimated time, and step-by-step directions. This distinguishes it from sibling direction tools like driving, transit, and bicycling by specifying the mode of travel.

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 no guidance on when to use walking versus the alternative direction tools (driving, transit, bicycling). It only states the function, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations.

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