Retrieve TechDisc practice-throw averages and maxima for speed, distance, spin, and angles, overall and by throw style, with optional start and end dates.
TechDisc averages and maxima (speed, distance, spin, angles), overall and by throw style.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated averages and maxima, grouped overall and by throw style, but it does not disclose date-range filtering behavior or response structure.
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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core output scope and grouping.
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 stats tool with optional start/end date filters and no output schema, the description omits any mention of date-range behavior or filtering semantics. The annotations cover safety, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand how to constrain the aggregation.
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 schema has two optional parameters, start and end, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention these date parameters at all, so it provides no meaning beyond the bare schema names and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific resource (TechDisc throw stats) and specifies the metrics returned: averages and maxima for speed, distance, spin, and angles, both overall and by throw style. It is clear what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like throw_trends or list_throws.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as throw_trends, list_throws, or compare_seasons. It implies a stats/aggregation use case but provides no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.