race-time-predictorPredict your finish time at common distances (5K through 100 miles) from a recent race result using the Riegel formula.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exponent | No | Riegel exponent. Default 1.06. | |
| knownTimeSeconds | Yes | Finish time for that race, in total seconds. | |
| knownDistanceMiles | Yes | Distance of your recent race, in miles. |
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.
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.