get_cycling_ftp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only the latest value is returned, not a series — but says nothing about return format, units, or behavior when no FTP is recorded.

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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the scope constraint and immediately followed by the routing instruction. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of conveying the return, and 'latest value only' is only a partial answer — it does not specify the unit (watts), the shape of the payload, or the behavior when no FTP exists. For a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain or compensate for. Nothing in the text misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 what the call returns — the latest FTP value only — which is a specific scope for a zero-arg getter, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from the historical range sibling. It never spells out the resource explicitly (cycling functional threshold power), relying on the tool name to carry that, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

It names the alternative (getFunctionalThresholdPowerRange) and the exact condition that selects it ('for history'), which is precisely the when-to-use/when-not pairing the dimension asks for. An agent needs no further inference to route between the two.

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