get_routes

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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this is a list operation, whether it's paginated (though schema hints at pagination), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is commendable for a simple tool.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for using the tool effectively is lacking, especially compared to siblings that might offer more guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (athlete_id, page, per_page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'routes' entail or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get athlete routes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('athlete routes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_activities' or 'get_route' by specifying routes rather than activities or a single route. However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves all routes for an athlete or filtered ones, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_route' (singular) or 'get_activities', nor does it indicate prerequisites such as authentication or context for athlete_id. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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