get_logged_in_athlete_starred_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation,' covering the safety aspect, and discloses the filtering behavior for private segments unless read_all scope is present. This is more transparent than a bare one-liner, though it could mention pagination behavior or return format limitations, which are only weakly implied.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear title, then the endpoint, a brief description, and a final read-only note. Each line serves a purpose, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant given the tool name and description. Overall, it is efficiently written without unnecessary fluff, earning a high score.

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 list operation with pagination, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned (a list of starred segments), the scope (authenticated athlete), and a specific behavior (private segment filtering). No output schema exists, but the term 'List' implies an array. It could mention the format of the items (e.g., summary objects), but that is inferred. Missing details like error handling or rate limits are not critical for this straightforward read operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page and per_page) with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage examples for these parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3. The description does not clarify the interaction between pagination and the private segment filtering, but the schema is sufficient.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Starred Segments' for the authenticated athlete, distinguishing it from segment search or segment-by-id tools. It also notes private segments are filtered unless read_all scope, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_explore_segments, so it lacks that extra differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what it does but does not mention any conditions that would make this tool the preferred choice, nor does it reference any other tools for different segment-related queries. The only usage hint is the scope requirement for private segments, but that is a permission detail, not a selection criterion.

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