TrainingPeaks-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for 'comparing PRs across time,' which implies read-only behavior and historical data retrieval, but doesn't explicitly mention permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some context about the tool's purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or data freshness.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It clarifies the tool's purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it's adequate as a minimum viable description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'pr_type' values further or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra parameter insights.

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's purpose: 'Get top performances by type.' It specifies the resource ('top performances') and the action ('get'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tp_get_workout_prs' or 'tp_get_workouts', which might also retrieve performance data. The additional context about 'comparing PRs across time, not single workouts' helps clarify scope but doesn't fully distinguish from all siblings.

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 clear usage context: 'For comparing PRs across time, not single workouts.' This indicates when to use this tool (for historical PR comparisons) and implicitly when not to use it (for single workout analysis). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide detailed exclusions, such as how it differs from 'tp_get_workout_prs' which might handle PRs differently.

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