get_segment_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and the required scope, which are key behavioral traits. It also notes that private segments require read_all, adding useful context. It does not describe error handling or response format, but for a simple retrieval this is adequate.

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 somewhat repetitive (the title 'Get Segment' is echoed in the description) but remains concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and includes endpoint and scopes in a clean format. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect 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 GET by id, the description covers the essential operational details (scope, read-only nature). While it does not describe the return format, given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the resource, the description is sufficient for an agent to make the call correctly. Slightly more context on response handling would push it to 5.

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% and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema, and the description only repeats the scope requirement. 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 clearly states 'Returns the specified segment.' with a specific verb and resource. The endpoint GET /segments/{id} makes it unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_efforts_by_segment_id or get_segment_streams, which return related data rather than the segment itself.

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 mentions the read_all scope requirement for athlete-specific or private segments, providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_efforts_by_segment_id instead), nor does it describe any exclusion conditions. It implies usage for retrieving a segment by id but lacks comparative routing.

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