fuelcenter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what the tool returns (daily carb target, protocol length, total carbs, pre-race meal size), which is not included in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loads the main purpose and includes output data. Every word contributes to the overall understanding; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema is absent, the description names the return values sufficiently. It does not explain hasGIIssues explicitly, but that is covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for a read-only calculator, though additional details about result units or edge cases could improve it.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description redundantly mentions some inputs (race type, body weight, finish time, experience) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. It does not cover hasGIIssues or provide units/syntax details, so it adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('pre-race carb loading targets'), along with key inputs (race type, body weight, finish time, experience level) and outputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fueling-plan or hydration by focusing specifically on carb loading.

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 the use case (pre-race carb loading calculation) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It offers a clear context but lacks alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds output details (returns target carbs, gel count, timing) but doesn't disclose any algorithmic behavior or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. The phrase 'core FuelCenter tool' is minor extra but not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description states the key return values and the schema fully documents inputs. Given the rich schema and simple read-only nature, the description is largely sufficient, though it could mention interaction with related tools.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond listing general outputs, which aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Build a minute-by-minute race or long-run fueling plan' and lists key outputs (target carbs/hour, gel count, schedule, total carbs). It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on plan generation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like gel-comparison.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or explicit comparison to sibling tools. 'This is the core FuelCenter tool' implies centrality but doesn't explain when to choose this over carb-loading, hydration, or gel-comparison. Users must infer usage from the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable scope context by listing the exact gel brands and fields returned, which clarifies the tool's output behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions exist.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes necessary specifics (brands, fields, optional sorting). Every word adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents (brands and attributes) and optional sorting. It lacks details about return format or limitations, but the low complexity and rich annotations make this sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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% with both parameters (sortKey and sortDirection) having clear descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description only states 'Optionally sort', providing minimal added meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns a specific resource (FuelCenter gel catalog) with a list of brands and fields. The verb 'Return' is specific and the description distinguishes it from planning tools by focusing on catalog data and sorting, rather than calculations or plans.

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?

Usage context is implied: you use this tool to get the gel catalog and optionally sort it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like fueling-plan or carb-loading, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description lacks direct 'use when' or 'use instead' phrasing.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact outputs (adjusted pace, slowdown percent, dew point, risk level, fueling note) and the fact that it estimates, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a bullet-like list of return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by clearly enumerating the return values. Combined with full parameter documentation and clear annotations, the tool is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the relevance of temperature and humidity but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 estimates how temperature and humidity affect race pace and fluid needs, with specific return values listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pace-calculator and race-time-predictor, which focus on other aspects of race performance.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when temperature and humidity are factors in race pacing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description need not repeat those. However, the description adds little beyond that, such as limitations of the estimate or output format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with a clear verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 simple calculator with full schema coverage and safe annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the inputs it uses. It implies the output ('fluid and sodium needs') without detailing units, which is acceptable given no output schema but could be slightly more explicit.

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 restates the parameter list without adding extra semantics or clarifying units/enum values. It does not compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.

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 ('estimate fluid and sodium needs') and identifies the context (race or long run). It is specific and distinguishes from related tools by topic, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate from them.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('for a race or long run') and lists the relevant inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the outputs (pace per mile/km, splits, speed), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and output summary. No filler words or redundant information.

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 simplicity of the calculator tool and the rich schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the key outputs and clarifies the input relationships, though it does not cover edge cases like zero values, which are unlikely to be required.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining the interdependency of the parameters (any two determine the third), which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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: given any two of distance, time, or pace, it calculates the third. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like race-time-predictor.

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 explains the core usage rule (any two inputs to compute the third), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools like fueling-plan or race-time-predictor are not referenced.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the Riegel formula and common distance range, giving useful context about the calculation method, but does not disclose edge cases, limitations, or return format. This adds some value beyond annotations but not extensively.

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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Predict your finish time'), and every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy.

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 simple calculator tool, the description covers the purpose, formula, and distance range. Annotations and schema provide additional context. The only minor gap is ambiguity about whether the tool returns predictions for all listed distances or a single one, but this is not critical given the overall clarity.

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?

All three parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% schema description coverage). The description mentions 'recent race result' which maps to knownDistanceMiles and knownTimeSeconds, but adds no semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'predict', names the resource 'finish time', and specifies the distance range (5K through 100 miles) and the Riegel formula. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pace-calculator by focusing on predicting finish times from a recent race result.

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 this tool versus alternatives, such as pace-calculator. It does not mention sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the description's own phrasing.

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