generate_race_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output nature but does not state whether the calculation relies solely on the two inputs or uses athlete profile data, nor does it describe expected units or any side effects. Some behavioral context is present, but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function, making it optimally concise.

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 generator, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify the boundary between 'fuel strategy' and the sibling calculate_race_nutrition tool, nor describe the output format. Given the overlapping siblings, more context would help the agent select correctly.

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 100%, with both distanceKm and targetTimeSeconds described in the schema. The description adds only a hint that pacing is per-kilometer, which slightly enhances distanceKm's meaning, but does not substantially extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and clearly identifies the output: a negative split kilometer pacing chart and fuel strategy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_workout or calculate_race_nutrition, which focus on different deliverable aspects.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention race preparation scenarios, prerequisites, or differentiate from calculate_race_nutrition which likely overlaps on the fuel strategy component. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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