get_segment_effort_streams

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 transparency. It declares the operation is read-only and requires read_all scope, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose the response format, potential errors, rate limits, or any special handling of the streams. The lack of detail about what the streams contain or how they are structured leaves the user partially uninformed.

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, front-loading the main purpose and then providing scope and read-only notes. The endpoint URL is repeated, which is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan. Each sentence serves a purpose without fluff.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but given there is no output schema, the description should provide some context about what a stream contains or how the response looks. It does mention that the segment effort was completed by the authenticated athlete, which is essential. However, it omits any explanation of the stream data structure (e.g., arrays of data points keyed by type) and does not mention that key_by_type must be true, though the schema covers that. Some additional context would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the enum for keys, the required boolean default for key_by_type, and clear text for id and keys. The description adds no additional parameter context or elaboration beyond the schema, so the 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 the specific operation: 'Get Segment Effort Streams' and clarifies 'Returns a set of streams for a segment effort completed by the authenticated athlete.' This clearly identifies the resource (segment effort) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_segment_streams (for a segment) and get_activity_streams (for an activity).

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 key usage context: it is for a segment effort (not a segment or activity), requires the read_all scope, and is read-only. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative stream tools, but the clear resource identification makes the intended use unambiguous. The read-only and scope guidance are useful for callers to know when this tool is appropriate.

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