Conciseness

The body is dense and environment-specific throughout (ID ranges like "ID 从 500000000 开始", the eta rule "行程用时以 move_to 返回的 eta 为准", category tables Claude could not know), with nothing explaining general knowledge; the only trimmable fat is repetition — "所有操作必须通过 ask_env" appears in the intro, the 可用工具 section, and 约束 1, and the moving-interruption warning appears in both 移动状态 and 约束 2 — which keeps it at 'minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than a 5.

Actionability

The examples are concrete and executable (e.g. `ask_env(instruction="Move person 0 to AOI 500000123 using driving", ctx={"id": 0})` with expected outputs), and every tool's parameters are enumerated; minor gaps remain — find_nearby_pois gets no worked example and no guidance on sourcing x, y from get_person's position, and the "<observe>" placeholder is never explained — so it is 'mostly executable with minor gaps' rather than copy-paste-complete across common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The examples form a natural progression (observe status → go to work → search and travel → return home) and an arrival checkpoint is stated ("到达后自动恢复为 idle") along with the explicit interruption rule; it falls short of a 5 because no end-to-end sequence is spelled out and there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g. what to do after an interrupted move or when no POI is found).

Progressive Disclosure

The single-file structure is well organized into 环境概念 / 可用工具 / 示例 / 约束 with no bundle files to reference; the one organizational question is the 14-row POI category table, which is borderline reference material that could live in a separate file — a minor placement gap that fits 'good structure, minor organization gaps' rather than the ideal split-and-navigate pattern of a 5.

Specificity

"在路网中移动 agent 到 AOI/POI、搜索周边 POI、用引力模型推荐目的地" lists three concrete actions plus the invocation constraint "必须通过 ask_env 调用 MobilitySpace 工具", matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor — it omits the observe/get-person capability, so it is not comprehensive enough for a 5, but is well above the 1-2-action level of a 3.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (move agent, search POIs, recommend destinations), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description — the closing sentence "必须通过 ask_env 调用 MobilitySpace 工具" is a constraint, not a 'when' — which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3 even though the 'what' is explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords like "城市移动导航", "搜索周边 POI", "引力模型", "ask_env", "MobilitySpace" are domain-relevant but mostly environment jargon; the natural phrases a user would say (e.g. 出行、去某地、附近有什么) and their synonyms are missing, which fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than the good natural-term coverage of a 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Environment-specific terms ("MobilitySpace", "ask_env", "AOI/POI", "引力模型") give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the lead phrase "城市移动导航" is broad enough to overlap generic navigation/travel skills, so it sits at 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the fully distinct trigger set of a 5.