find_braking_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it partially discharges it by disclosing the returned quantities (start/end distance, entry/minimum speed). However, it says nothing about read-only safety, cost, or how the threshold affects detection, so key traits remain implicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently conveys the output payload. It is compact and wastes nothing, though it is too short to cover the remaining gaps.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only analytics tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate: purpose and outputs are stated. But with no annotations and no output schema, the missing safety/handling context and the unexplained effect of the threshold leave it short of complete.

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 100%, so both lapNumber and threshold are already documented in the schema with ranges and a default. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Detect braking zones on a lap') and even summarizes the produced values (start/end distance, entry and minimum speed). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_lap_times or get_tyre_wear, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The phrase 'on a lap' weakly implies the lapNumber requirement, but nothing tells the agent why to pick this over get_car_telemetry for braking data.

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