get_route_as_tcx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and requires read_all scope for private routes, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, response handling, or any other side effects. The coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose. It uses clear section headings and avoids excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'Read-only operation' and scope information, but it remains well-structured and easy to scan.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it does, the auth requirement for private routes, and that it's read-only. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The lack of details about the response format is minor since the TCX file type is inherently understood.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond referring to the route context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 exports a route as a TCX file, using a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('Route TCX'). It distinguishes from sibling get_route_as_gpx by specifying the TCX format, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_route_as_gpx or get_route_by_id. It mentions scope requirements but does not explain selection criteria or cases where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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