weather_pace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the two modes and the input format for pace. However, it does not disclose the output format, any side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. Since it's a calculator, the lack of output description is a gap, though an output schema exists.

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 concise, with a clear overall statement followed by bullet-point explanations of modes and pace format. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The structure is efficient, though could be slightly more organized (e.g., separate sections for parameters).

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description explains the core function and two modes but omits details on temp_c and humidity parameters. The pace format clarification is helpful. The output schema might cover return values, but the description itself is incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the mode parameter's values and the pace parameter's supported formats. However, it does not describe the temp_c and humidity parameters (e.g., units, valid ranges). Two of four parameters are left undocumented, which is a significant 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 clearly states the tool is a temperature/humidity and pace converter, with two distinct modes (adjust and normalize) that cover specific use cases. It uses a strong verb ('换算器' meaning converter) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools which provide raw data, not calculations.

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 explains when to use each mode: adjust for converting target pace from cool to hot/humid conditions, normalize for converting actual pace back to equivalent cool conditions. This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly compare to sibling tools like weather_now or garmin_run_conditions, so it's not a full 5.

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