get_puzzle_race

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get info' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get info'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it earns high marks for brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'info' includes, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, with the parameter 'raceId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the puzzle race'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as where to find race IDs or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get info about a puzzle race' states the basic purpose (verb 'get' + resource 'puzzle race'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_puzzle_activity' or 'get_puzzle_dashboard', which also retrieve puzzle-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_puzzle_activity'), the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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