Get equipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only the resource scope (bikes, shoes) and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 only 4 words ('List equipment (bikes, shoes).') with the verb front-loaded and no redundant information. It is an excellent example of concise, purposeful writing.

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 read-only list with two optional parameters and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The schema fills in details about the type enum and athlete filtering. Minor gap: the parenthetical could be misleading about the default 'all' type, but that is resolved in the schema.

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 schema provides an enum for `type` with values 'bike', 'shoe', 'all' and a default of 'all', plus a description for `athlete`. The description's parenthetical aligns with the enum values but omits the 'all' option, which could be slightly ambiguous. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'equipment' and adds a clarifying parenthetical '(bikes, shoes)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like tp_create_equipment, tp_update_equipment, and tp_delete_equipment.

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 verb 'List' implies read-only usage, and the sibling tools have write verbs, so the intended context is inferred. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the optional type/athlete filters or coach-only restriction.

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