get_samples

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data granularity (one row per 10 seconds), the output format (CSV), and the volume concern (full ride is several hundred rows). It does not mention default parameter behavior, error handling, or any rate/performance implications beyond the size hint. It adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output format; the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, the granularity, the size concern, and how to limit the request. It could mention defaults for parameters (though the schema covers those) and clarify that the output is a CSV string, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50% – only fields, maxRows, and everyNth have descriptions. The description adds meaning for the undocumented window parameters by referencing 'a window' (fromSeconds/toSeconds) and 'a stride' (everyNth), clarifying their intended use. It also lists the field names, reinforcing the fields enum. This compensates for the schema gap, though it does not explicitly explain id or maxRows beyond what schema already states.

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's function: 'raw interval series for one ride as CSV' and enumerates the specific data columns (power, cadence, resistance, heart rate, speed). It also notes the row granularity (one row per 10 seconds). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like get_workout (summary) and export_workout (likely a different format).

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 clear usage advice on how to call the tool: 'Ask for a window and a stride rather than a whole ride' and notes the size concern. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workout or export_workout. The guidance is on parameter selection rather than tool selection, so it is implied usage rather than explicit exclusions.

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