calculate_velo_development

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 states that the tool calculates and returns values, implying a read-only, stateless operation. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive, what authentication is needed, or any limitations. The description 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: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds return values and a reference to related tools. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple calculator tool with well-documented parameters and an implicit output schema, the description is quite complete. It mentions all return fields. Missing elements include precision/rounding details and explicit confirmation of statelessness, but these are not critical for a 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 coverage is 100%, and all parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool's description adds no extra semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 bicycle development in meters per pedal revolution.' It specifies the exact verb and resource, and lists the return fields (gear_ratio, development_m, speed_at_90rpm_kmh). This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_gear_ratio, which likely computes only gear ratio, and points to list_bundles for related 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_gear_ratio. The only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related 'sport' calculators,' which indirectly suggests browsing for other tools but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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