Retrieve an athlete's registered gear with accumulated distance to track mileage on shoes and bikes. Identify how much each item has been used.
Registered gear such as shoes and bikes, with accumulated distance.
Useful for mileage on a given pair of shoes. An empty list means the athlete tracks no gear.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only registered gear is returned and that an empty list means the athlete tracks no gear, which is a useful non-obvious behavior. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is meaningful transparency; it does not need to discuss side effects or mutation.
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 short and every sentence earns its place: the first identifies the resource, the second provides a use case, and the third explains empty-list semantics. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the first sentence is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a complete sentence.
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 an extremely simple tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what gear is returned, a typical use case, and the meaning of an empty response. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape, but the description covers the essential information an agent needs.
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?
There are no parameters defined in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what the returned data represents, even though it does not clarify parameter usage. Since no parameters exist, there is nothing more needed here.
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 identifies the resource (registered gear like shoes and bikes) and a key attribute (accumulated distance), making it easy to distinguish from the activity and profile tools in the sibling list. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve,' relying on the tool name 'get_gear' to convey the action, so it does not earn a 5.
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 gives a concrete use case: checking mileage on a given pair of shoes. It also clarifies the meaning of an empty result, which helps an agent interpret the response and decide whether to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool covers gear, so this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.