compare_tire_compoundsCompare average lap times across different tire compounds for a given Formula 1 year, Grand Prix, and session to evaluate tyre performance.
Compare average lap times across different tire compounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the comparison metric is average lap time; it says nothing about whether results are grouped per compound, whether they are scoped to one race, or how much data must exist.
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 compact sentence with the key metric front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any hint about scope selection (year/gp/session) and how this differs from the many neighbouring tyre and strategy comparison tools.
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% for all three parameters, and the description does not explain that gp/year select the event or that session (default 'R') selects which session's laps feed the comparison. With required vs optional parameters and a non-obvious default left undocumented, the description fails to compensate.
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 ('Compare average lap times across different tire compounds'), so the agent knows exactly what output dimension is produced. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like compare_tire_age_performance, get_tyre_strategy, or compare_strategies, so it stops short of 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 prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives in a sibling list that contains several tyre/strategy comparison tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.