compute_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the walker preset speeds (3/4/5 km/h flat, 200/300/450 m/h uphill) and that default smoothing is broadly adequate, which is genuine behavioral context. However it never states whether the recomputation is persisted (write) or read-only, nor permission requirements, leaving key traits undisclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the walker profile detail is compact and relevant, with no filler sentences. Formatting is slightly noisy with the leading indentation and blank line, but the content is tight.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the description is thin for a tool with 8 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations. The relationship between walker and the explicit speed parameters, and whether recalculation overwrites stored route data, are left unresolved.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `walker` and its effect on the speed parameters, and mentions smoothing defaults, but says nothing about flat_kmh, up_m_per_h, down_m_per_h, threshold_m, step_m, smooth_window_m, or route_id, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (recalculates/recalcule) and concrete resources (distance, D+/D-, altitudes, duration), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like validate_route or compare_routes, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'avec d'autres paramètres' vaguely implies you call it to recompute with different settings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The note that default smoothing suits most cases is a hint, not real usage guidance.

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