get_running_strategy_options_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns options for presentation, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral details. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool returns, but does not elaborate on the structure or usage context. For a simple retrieval tool, it meets a basic standard but could be slightly more informative.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by stating the purpose of the output, though it does not elaborate on parameterization since none exists.

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 'Return' as the verb and specifies the resource as 'objective running pace strategy options', clearly indicating what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about playlist management and health, but the verb is not highly specific.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling tools are unrelated, so the tool's purpose is unique, but no explicit usage context is given.

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