daniels_calculate_vdot

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 the tool calculates VDOT based on distance and time, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this. It also lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds basic context but misses key behavioral traits, resulting in a mediocre score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement, slightly affecting efficiency.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema that documents the return value, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter units, and return type, which suffices for a simple calculation tool. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'distance' is in meters and 'time' is in seconds, which clarifies units beyond the schema's generic number types. However, it doesn't explain valid ranges (e.g., positive values), constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding. This partial compensation aligns with a baseline score.

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's purpose: 'Calculate VDOT according to Jack Daniels.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), the resource ('VDOT'), and the methodology ('according to Jack Daniels'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'convert_pace' or 'mcmillan_calculate_training_paces'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate VDOT from other metrics like 'velocity_markers' or 'heart_rate_zones' among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when VDOT calculation is appropriate compared to other tools like 'daniels_predict_race_time' or 'mcmillan_predict_race_times', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is for calculating aerobic capacity, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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