get_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful behavior: optional athlete_id and api_key fall back to .env values, and dates default to today and 30 days out. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, error cases when credentials are missing, pagination, or any external API call behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose line followed by a brief Args block. Every line adds useful information, and there is no redundant fluff.

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 simple read tool with an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description is nearly complete. The main missing piece is guidance about how it relates to get_event_by_id and whether it returns all events or only filtered ones beyond the date range. Still, an agent can invoke it correctly using the provided parameter details.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with format, optionality, and defaults: athlete_id, api_key, start_date, end_date. It explains the YYYY-MM-DD format and the .env fallback behavior, adding meaning well beyond the bare schema types and null defaults.

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 what the tool does: 'Get events for an athlete from Intervals.icu'. It is an explicit verb plus resource and source. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_event_by_id or other event-related siblings, so it falls just short of the strongest possible clarity.

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 provides parameter-level usage details like date defaults and .env fallbacks, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_event_by_id, add_or_update_event, or delete_event. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context beyond the implied purpose.

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