compare_power_streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the reiterated 'Read-only' is redundant but consistent. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond that: no calibration and no correction factor, sensor names sourced only from the file's device data, samples excluded as coasting/missing/outliers, and the statistical outputs produced per mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the one-ride/several-ride fork, and each sentence carries information. The two dense paragraphs are long for a tool description, but no sentence is filler and the ordering is logical.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out the returned metrics (offset in W and %, per power band, 30/60 s windows, drift over quarters, lag, best efforts, exclusions) and the multi-ride aggregation (median, between-ride SD, range, per bike and power meter). It also points to the method guide. Nothing needed to call or interpret this 12-parameter tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-dependent semantics the schema cannot express: which parameters apply only to one ride (start_index/end_index) versus several (start_date/end_date/limit/detail_level), plus 'duplicates ignored, cut to limit' for activity_ids. That meaningfully exceeds the schema's per-field text.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'compare two power meters recorded on the same ride (watts vs secondary_power by default)'. It also defines scope (one ride or across several rides), which distinguishes it from compare_best_efforts and compare_workouts without opening a schema.

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 clearly branches on the selecting condition: pass activity_id for one ride, or omit it / pass activity_ids for several rides, with defaults (180 days, newest first, limit 10, max 20). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer routing, but the mode selection guidance is precise.

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