calculate_running_pace

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 only states the basic functionality without disclosing behavioral aspects like rounding, error handling, or limits on input values. For a simple calculator, more transparency about edge cases would be helpful.

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 extremely concise with two meaningful sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second provides a pointer to related tools. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters. The description covers the return format and hints at related tools. Given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema already contains clear descriptions for both parameters (distance in km, time in minutes). The description adds the units (min/km, km/h) and the return object structure, which is a minor improvement. With 100% schema coverage, the description's added value is limited.

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 calculates running pace and speed from distance and time, with specific units. It effectively communicates the verb (calculate) and resource (pace/speed). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling running calculators like marathon_splits or vma, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 a hint to see list_bundles for related calculators, implying alternatives exist but not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus others. No specific usage context or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent with moderate guidance.

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