tp_get_peaks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool scans workouts that have PRs, aggregates best values, and shows top records per duration/distance. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'get peaks', though it omits potential performance implications or auth requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by an Args section and then an elaboration. It is somewhat verbose but front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (making return format documentation unnecessary), the description covers the tool's operation sufficiently: it explains what it scans, how it aggregates, and what it displays. It doesn't miss critical aspects for a data retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides details for all three parameters: sport allowed values (Bike, Run, Swim, Hike), days max (365), and pr_class options (Power, HeartRate, None). This adds value beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 gets personal records by scanning recent workouts for a given sport, using specific verbs like 'Get' and 'scanning'. It distinguishes itself by focusing on aggregated peaks over a time range, differentiating from sibling tools like tp_get_workout_prs which likely focus on individual workout PRs.

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 implies usage for retrieving overall peaks across workouts and days, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tp_get_workout_prs or tp_fitness_trend. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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