mcmillan_calculate_velocity_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool does (calculates velocity markers) and the output format, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, validation rules for inputs, or performance characteristics. The description adds basic context but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, input semantics, and output format. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context or usage caveats.

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 adds meaning by specifying that 'distance' is in meters and 'time' is in seconds, which clarifies the units beyond the schema's numeric types. However, it doesn't explain valid ranges or constraints (e.g., positive values, realistic race distances).

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 specific action ('calculate velocity markers'), identifies the methodology ('McMillan'), and specifies the exact markers produced (vLT, CV, vVO2). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'mcmillan_calculate_training_paces' by focusing on velocity markers rather than training paces.

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 clear context ('from a race performance using McMillan methodology'), which implicitly suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'daniels_calculate_vdot' or 'mcmillan_predict_race_times', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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