hydrationEstimate fluid and sodium needs for a race or long run based on body weight, duration, intensity, temperature, and humidity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tempF | Yes | Temperature in Fahrenheit. | |
| humidity | Yes | Relative humidity, 0-100. | |
| intensity | Yes | Effort level. | |
| bodyWeightLbs | Yes | Body weight in pounds. | |
| durationMinutes | Yes | Run or race duration in minutes. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but heat-adjustment and hydration both estimate fluid needs based on temperature and humidity, which could cause an agent to select the wrong one. The other tools (carb-loading vs fueling-plan, pace-calculator vs race-time-predictor) are well-differentiated by their pre-race vs during-race and basic vs predictive focus.
All tool names are lowercase and use hyphens to join words (e.g., carb-loading, fueling-plan). The pattern is consistent and predictable, with no mixing of camelCase, snake_case, or other conventions. Even 'hydration' fits as a single-word name matching the overall simplicity.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for a running-fueling domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of race preparation and execution, and none feel redundant or unnecessary. This is squarely in the optimal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers the full pre-race and race-day fueling workflow: pace/race-time prediction, fueling plan generation, hydration, heat adjustment, carb-loading, and gel selection. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of creating and refining race fueling strategies.