calculate_training_zones_running

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value includes vma_kmh, but does not disclose whether the tool requires network access, permissions, or has side effects. For a simple calculation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences that convey purpose, output, and a pointer to related tools. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context: what it calculates, the output format, and a reference to related calculators. It does not list the zones, but the output schema presumably handles that.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description of the vma parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it calculates 6 running training zones as speed ranges based on VMA, and specifies the output includes vma_kmh. It is specific about the resource (running training zones) and action (calculate), making it distinct from sibling calculators.

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 implies use when you have VMA and need running zones, and references list_bundles for related sport calculators, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from similar zone calculators like heart_rate_zones or cycling_power.

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