get_athlete

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals read-only behavior ('Return'), clarifies the authentication context ('authenticated athlete'), and even discloses the conditional nature of FTP ('if set'). This is solid for a simple getter, though it does not discuss error cases or rate limits.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action, target, and returned fields are front-loaded, and the conditional FTP detail is efficiently parenthesized.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the exact resource and lists the returned fields. There is nothing an agent needs to know in order to invoke this tool correctly that is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric this earns a baseline 4; the description instead usefully documents the output fields, which is the relevant information for an agent.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('the authenticated athlete's profile'), then enumerates the contained fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity, get_stats, and get_athlete_zones, all of which target different data.

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 makes clear it is the tool for retrieving the current athlete's profile data, and the sibling names show that other tools serve different purposes. It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or name alternatives, but the context is obvious enough for a zero-parameter profile fetch.

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