compare_strategy_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a projection/calculation rather than a mutating action, restricts the comparison to a single driver, and surfaces the key invariant that each strategy must have exactly one more compound than pit laps. It does not discuss modeling assumptions, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core result and then adds only the necessary strategy-shape detail. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant background.

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?

The description is adequate for a projection tool, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with six required parameters and no annotations, it leaves notable gaps around the meaning of 'session', the exact property names for each strategy object, and explicit guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus its siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the complex 'strategies' parameter by specifying label, pit laps, and compounds with a count relationship. Other parameters like driver, circuit, season, session, and current_lap are only implied by the remaining-race-time context and their names, leaving some ambiguity, especially for 'session' and the exact expected keys inside each strategy object.

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 names a specific action ('Projects total remaining-race time') and resource ('N hypothetical strategies') for one driver, with enough structural detail to distinguish it from siblings like simulate_undercut_overcut or generate_strategy_report. It is not a tautology and clearly states what the tool computes.

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: use this when you need to compare multiple hypothetical pit/compound strategies and see projected remaining-race time. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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