get_route_as_gpx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does state it is a read-only operation and requires read_all scope for private routes, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose response format details, potential errors, or behavior for non-private routes, and there is no mention of rate limits or other side effects beyond being read-only. Adequate but minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint line and bullet points are efficient, though the formatting splits information across lines unnecessarily. Every sentence contributes value with no fluff, earning a solid 4.

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 export with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential actions and scope requirements. However, it omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., when to choose GPX over TCX) and doesn't mention response content type or error handling. The gaps are minor but present, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 single required parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('The identifier of the route.') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond reinforcing the id's role. Baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'Export' and the resource 'Route GPX', and notes it returns a GPX file. It differentiates from siblings by format (GPX vs TCX) implicitly through the name, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_route_as_tcx. The endpoint and read-only nature add 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_route_as_tcx or get_route_streams. The only usage-related information is the scope requirement for private routes (read_all), but no context on selection criteria or conditions, leaving the agent to infer.

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