Get focus event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the returned data includes 'goals and results', which is useful beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like auth requirements or return format. No contradiction with 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 a single short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 tool with comprehensive annotations and a well-described schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns ('goals and results') and the resource type. However, it doesn't explain what 'A-priority focus event' means or clarify that omitting 'athlete' uses the caller's profile (latter is in schema). Given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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 has one parameter, 'athlete', with a full description covering name/ID and coach-only usage, yielding 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 the action ('Get') and the target resource ('A-priority focus event'), and also indicates the contents ('goals and results'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like tp_get_events and tp_get_next_event by the unique 'focus event' resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions like needing the focus event, or exclusions such as 'use tp_get_events for other events'. The schema mentions the optional athlete parameter for coaches, but the description itself lacks usage context.

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