get_route_streams

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only and that read_all scope is required for private routes, which are useful behavioral cues. It also specifies the HTTP GET method in the endpoint, adding to transparency. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the returned streams, error behavior, or pagination. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, so this partial disclosure merits a 3.

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 well-structured, with the endpoint, description, and scopes on separate lines. It front-loads the primary purpose. A minor inefficiency is the redundant header 'Get Route Streams' that repeats the tool name, but it does not detract significantly. Overall it is concise 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what streams are and the expected return format. It only says 'returns the given route's streams' without defining stream types, data structure, or examples. The scope requirement is helpful, but the tool is not fully self-described. An agent unfamiliar with the API would not know what a 'stream' is, making this incomplete for a seemingly simple but domain-specific 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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, such as where the ID comes from or any constraints. Given high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the tool returns the given route's streams, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear that this is for fetching streams for a specific route. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_activity_streams or get_segment_streams, though the route-specific reference provides some distinction. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology, so it earns a 4.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It mentions that read_all scope is required for private routes, which is an access condition, but does not explain when to choose this over get_activity_streams or get_route_as_gpx. There is no explicit comparison or situational advice, leaving the agent to infer usage context. This is a significant gap for a tool with many similar siblings.

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