get_power_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the analysis scope (power outputs, FTP estimation, monthly comparison) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the key analysis points (specific durations, FTP estimation, monthly comparison). No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 the tool has no inputs and no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of what it does. It covers the main analytical goals but stops short of describing the return format or how the comparison is presented, which would be helpful for 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as none exist. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so no compensation is required.

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 analyzes best power outputs for specific durations (5s, 1min, 5min, 20min, 60min), estimates FTP, and compares with the previous month. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource (power outputs), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_training_load_analysis by focusing on power curve data.

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 implies usage for power curve analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_training_load_analysis or get_hr_drift_analysis. No when-not or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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