openf1_intervals

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return format (fields) but no behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether historical data is accessible. The 'sampled over time' hint is vague.

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 sentences with clear, front-loaded purpose. Return format is concisely listed. No fluff, but lacks structure for parameter details.

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?

With 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, description explains return fields but omits parameter semantics. This leaves agents unable to correctly call the tool without inferring parameter roles from names.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameters (meeting_key, session_key, driver_number). The return format is described but not how to filter or use inputs. This is a significant gap.

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?

Clearly describes the tool as providing live gap data during a race, specifically gap to leader and interval to car ahead. This distinguishes it from other openf1 tools (e.g., position, laps) though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

Implies use during a race via 'Live gap data' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. related tools like openf1_position or openf1_laps.

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