math_running_pace_converter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It discloses the tool performs conversions, split calculations, and predictions, but lacks details on error handling, unsupported units, required input formats, or side effects. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three sentences and front-loads the key capabilities. The first sentence ('Menu ID: ...') is metadata and could be removed for conciseness, but overall it efficiently conveys functionality without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the high-level features but lacks parameter mapping and output format. The pointer to describe_tool helps, but the description alone is not fully self-contained.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of each parameter (operation, value, fromUnit, toUnit). It mentions possible values for units (min/km, min/mi, kph, mph) but without explicit mapping to fromUnit/toUnit. The operation parameter is not clarified at all.

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 the tool converts running pace and speed, computes split times for specific distances (5K, 10K, half marathon, marathon), and predicts race times using the Riegel exponent. This provides specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling conversion tools that cover different domains (crypto, encoding, etc.).

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 explicitly outlines the tool's capabilities (pace conversion, split times, race prediction) and hints at using describe_tool for full guidance, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools are unrelated to running, making usage clear by context.

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