get_sport_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Since the tool is a read operation (implied by 'get' and the noun 'settings'), it doesn't need to warn about destructive effects, but it also doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or any limitations (e.g., which sports are covered, whether it returns all zones at once). The description adds the context that zone boundaries are sport-specific, which is valuable, but it leaves out return format details (like units or structure). A score of 3 is appropriate because it covers the essential 'what' but not the 'how' of the response.

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 two sentences plus a trailing note, totaling under 30 words. It front-loads the core content (zone types) and immediately provides the critical usage context ('Read this before judging...') with no redundancy. Every clause adds value and is tightly structured.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what data is returned and when to use it. It could be more complete by describing the output format or any assumptions (e.g., whether it returns all sports or a specific one), but those are minor gaps. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the data.

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 0 parameters, so the schema itself is trivially covered (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by listing the specific metrics (FTP, LTHR, etc.) that the output will contain, which is helpful beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is warranted since the description enriches the otherwise empty parameter context.

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 a specific verb/resource combination: it retrieves training zones and thresholds per sport, enumerating FTP, LTHR, max HR, and various zone types. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_athlete_profile or get_training_load_chart, which focus on other data domains. The mention of 'per sport' sets it apart clearly.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'Read this before judging whether a session was easy or hard' and explains why (zone boundaries differ per sport). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, the guidance is clear and actionable. It could strengthen by mentioning that this complements activity analysis tools, but it's sufficient.

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