get_circuit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clarifies the tool returns either circuit details or track status changes, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples). The description is appropriately sized with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks could be slightly cleaner.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics and usage. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (rate limits, auth, errors) which would be helpful for a data retrieval tool.

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 successfully explains all 4 parameters: year (season year 2018+), gp (Grand Prix name or round), data_type (with enum values explained), and session (required for track_status with session types listed). The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves circuit layout, corners, or track status (flags, safety car) with specific verb+resource combinations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_session_details or get_track_evolution by focusing specifically on circuit data rather than session-specific or evolution data.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each data_type option: 'circuit_info' for layout/corners and 'track_status' for flags. It also specifies that session parameter is required for track_status but not for circuit_info, offering clear conditional usage rules.

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