get_pit_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the core methodology—weighing tire degradation against pit loss time and considering traffic risk—but does not describe assumptions, limitations, or how the output should be interpreted.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and distinguishing factors without filler. Every phrase contributes substantive meaning.

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 tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to choose among sibling strategy tools, what qualifies as 'optimal', or what values are expected for fields like session and circuit, even though an output schema exists.

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 needs to compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It only adds context for 'driver' and the general concept; circuit, season, session, and current_lap are left entirely to their names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 that the tool computes an optimal pit window for a driver by weighing tire degradation against pit loss time and adding a traffic-risk assessment. It identifies a specific resource and unique calculation logic, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 like simulate_undercut_overcut, compare_strategy_options, or generate_strategy_report. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose, with no exclusions or decision rules.

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