analyze_long_run_paceEvaluate a driver's long-run race pace from Formula 1 practice sessions, using year, GP, and driver to compare stint performance and simulation speed.
Analyze race simulation pace from practice sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | Yes | ||
| session | No | FP2 |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain scope ('race simulation pace from practice sessions') but does not disclose analytical behavior, limitations, or data requirements beyond what annotations imply.
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 is concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance and parameter detail elsewhere.
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?
Given four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and many overlapping sibling tools, the description is too thin. Output schema and annotations reduce the burden for return values and safety, but selection context and input usage remain largely unexplained.
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% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (year, gp, driver, session). With four undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics and leaves parameter meaning entirely opaque.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Analyze race simulation pace from practice sessions.' An agent can tell it produces race-simulation pace analysis, but the description does not distinguish it from siblings like get_stint_analysis, analyze_lap_consistency, or compare_strategies.
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?
It gives a data-source context ('from practice sessions') but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent must infer selection among many similar analysis tools without explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.