Wahoo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details like required parameters or key constraints, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, error handling, or behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but unknown output complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'plan_id' documented as 'The ID of the plan to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific plan' clearly states the action (get) and resource (plan), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It distinguishes from list_plans by specifying retrieval of a single plan, but doesn't differentiate from other get_* tools like get_power_zone or get_workout beyond the resource name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a plan_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple plans), or direct comparisons to siblings like list_plans or create_plan.

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