compare_laps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output convention ('positive = lapB slower'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for invalid lap numbers, or any limits — notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the output list and sign convention appended. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned deltas, but stepM's meaning (sampling step for the distance delta) is unexplained and the shape of the per-sector/distance output is not described. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter analytical tool.

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 67%: lapA and lapB are documented as 1-based lap numbers, but stepM has no schema description. The description does clarify the ordering semantics between lapA and lapB via the sign convention, adding value beyond the schema, but it never explains stepM, leaving a parameter undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Compare two laps') and enumerates the outputs it produces (total delta, per-sector delta, delta by distance). It is functionally distinguishable from siblings like get_lap_times or get_fastest_sector, though it never names an alternative to sharpen that boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'Compare two laps' phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting it over get_lap_times, and no prerequisite or exclusion statements. The sign-convention note is interpretive, not usage guidance.

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