tp_list_athletes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions account scope and coach accounts, but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, describe the return format, or mention any permissions needed. It is not misleading but is sparse for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without any filler. It is perfectly sized 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?

For a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by hinting at the return structure (e.g., athlete objects), but it adequately covers the core functionality and intended audience.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but this is acceptable. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'athletes', and specifies the scope 'available to this account (coach accounts)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_athlete_settings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'coach accounts' provides context on the intended user, and since no sibling tool lists athletes, the usage context is clear. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but given the unique functionality, it is adequate.

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