calculate_vma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the computation and output but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects) or mention any authorization or rate limits. For a simple calculator, 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: computation purpose, use case, input explanation, output hint, and pointer to related tools. No 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?

For a two-parameter calculator with an output schema (handling return values), the description covers the main purpose and usage. However, it omits the 'demi_cooper' test type and provides an incomplete mapping, which could mislead users. Otherwise comprehensive.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor context ('test type (Cooper 12-min, Luc Léger), result') but mostly paraphrases the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema's param descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool computes VMA from a fitness test and names two test types (Cooper, Luc Léger). However, the input schema includes three enum values (cooper, demi_cooper, vameval) while the description only mentions two, missing demi_cooper and mislabeling vameval as 'Luc Léger'. This incomplete mapping 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?

Provides explicit use case: 'for runners building training plans.' Suggests consulting 'list_bundles' for related calculators. Does not include when-not-to-use or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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