describe_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and details the exact output contents: computed watts, duration, elapsed time, total duration, average/normalised power, IF, TSS, and total work. It implies a read-only sanity-check behavior but does not state side effects or error handling, so a notch below 5.

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 three sentences: purpose, output details, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource and contains no filler, earning a perfect score.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not address invalid inputs or errors, but those are lower priority given the tool's sanity-checking purpose and sibling support.

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 sole parameter 'spec' is an opaque object with 0% schema coverage. The description adds that it is a 'workout spec' containing 'every block' and mentions watts and duration, which partially helps. However, it does not define the required structure of the spec object, so the parameter remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 uses the verb 'Render' with the resource 'workout spec' and specifies the output as a 'human-readable block table', which clearly differentiates it from sibling render tools (render_zwo, render_garmin) and validate_spec. The purpose is immediately clear.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this before rendering', giving a clear when-to-use context and contrasts with XML rendering ('it is much easier to spot a wrong number here than in XML'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is sufficient for a 4.

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