openf1_get_pit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only gives a minimal purpose and does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The word 'Get' implies a read operation but not explicitly.

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 superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 no output schema, the description should elaborate on the structure of returned data (e.g., fields like pit_duration, pit_lane_time, etc.). It only hints at two fields and lacks completeness for an agent to understand the full output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful extra context beyond the schema; it merely reiterates 'pit lane time and duration' which aligns with the pit_duration_lte parameter. No examples or additional semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('pit stop data') and mentions specific fields ('pit lane time and duration'). It is distinct from sibling tools like openf1_get_car_data, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar f1_get_pit_stops.

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 others (e.g., f1_get_pit_stops) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention context or exclusions.

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