calculate_race_prediction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the use of the Riegel formula and the return object, but does not discuss assumptions, validity ranges, or potential edge cases. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It provides formula and bundle reference, but lacks usage context like 'for running races' or limitations. Still fairly complete for a simple calculation 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 100% as all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate per the scoring criteria.

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 predicts race time using the Riegel formula, specifying the verb 'predict' and the resource 'race time'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_running_pace' by mentioning the specific formula and providing the return object structure.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'calculate_marathon_splits' or 'calculate_running_pace'. The only hint is 'See list_bundles for related sport calculators', which is vague and doesn't directly compare or exclude other tools.

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