Convert F1 race context and pit-stop decisions into a formatted Markdown strategy report, providing clear documentation for engineering review.
Formats a Markdown strategy report from an LLM/host-curated list of decisions. Purely deterministic formatting — no summarization here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decisions | Yes | ||
| race_context | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: the tool is purely deterministic and performs no summarization. This is the core behavioral information an agent needs to avoid treating this as a generative or analytical tool.
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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying determinism caveat is placed immediately after.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but the description omits the meaning of 'race_context' and expected decision-object structure. For a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this is too incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only characterizes 'decisions' as an LLM/host-curated list and says nothing about 'race_context', the shape of decision items, or required fields. An agent cannot correctly construct inputs from this 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Formats a Markdown strategy report' from a curated decisions list. It also clarifies the scope ('LLM/host-curated list of decisions') and separates this formatting tool from the analysis/simulation siblings.
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: use this when a report needs to be produced from an already-curated decisions list. 'Purely deterministic formatting — no summarization here' provides a boundary, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.