tp_get_peaks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The brief description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The purpose is stated first and a use case follows. It is appropriately concise, though it could include more detail without becoming overly long.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how the 'days' parameter influences results, or provide examples. Given the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 50% (athlete and pr_type have descriptions, days and sport do not). The tool description does not explain any parameter, leaving details to the schema. For parameters without schema descriptions (sport, days), the description provides no compensation, reducing usability.

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 'Get top performances by type' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'tp_get_workout_prs', which also deals with personal records. The additional phrase 'For comparing PRs over time' adds some context but not enough to clearly distinguish it.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'tp_get_workout_prs' or 'tp_get_fitness'. The description hints at use for comparing PRs over time, but does not provide exclusions or specific prerequisites.

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