analyze_lap_consistencyCalculate standard deviation and variation in Formula 1 lap times by year, Grand Prix, driver, and session to measure race pace consistency.
Analyze lap time consistency (standard deviation, variation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | Yes | ||
| session | No | R |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that output includes standard deviation and variation, but does not disclose data source, computation window, or any constraints. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the metric.
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?
Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but parameter semantics are entirely absent for a tool requiring year, gp, and driver. The description does not tell the agent what values are valid for gp or session, leaving a critical invocation gap.
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 four parameters (year, gp, driver, session). The description mentions no parameter names, formats, or defaults, so it cannot compensate for missing schema semantics. The agent has no help passing 'gp' or 'session'.
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 'Analyze' and resource 'lap time consistency', and parenthetical metrics (standard deviation, variation) clarify the output. Does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_lap_times or analyze_long_run_pace, so not a 5.
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 guidance, no alternatives named. Agent must infer from the tool name that this is for consistency rather than raw lap times or long-run pace. Siblings include many analysis and get_lap_times tools; no routing help is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.