get_cycling_ftp

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states what data is returned but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, data freshness, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations (none exist) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic output.

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 one short, waste-free phrase, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks a verb and front-loaded action, and while it contains no fluff, it does not structure the purpose in a helpful way for an agent.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not provide context about the data's meaning, time range, or relationship to sibling tools. With many similar getters, the absence of differentiation makes it incomplete for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description need not explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter info is required.

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 'Cycling Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and power zones' indicates the resource and content, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It distinguishes from siblings somewhat by mentioning both FTP and power zones, but does not clarify scope (e.g., current vs historical). It is not a tautology, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_power_zones or get_lactate_threshold. No context, exclusions, or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on name alone.

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