list_starred_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated athlete' which implies authentication is needed, but doesn't specify permission requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 simple list tool with 2 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about authentication specifics, output format, and how this differs from sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral guidance to be truly complete.

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 fully documents both parameters (page and per_page). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. 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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('segments starred by the authenticated athlete'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from general segment tools by specifying 'starred' and 'by the authenticated athlete', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'explore_segments' or 'get_segment'.

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 like 'explore_segments' or 'get_segment'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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