get_athlete_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'authenticated athlete' but does not address data freshness, caching, potential size of response, rate limits, or if any side effects occur. As a read operation, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by specific breakdown details. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (totals for running, cycling, swimming across three timeframes). It could be improved by hinting at the response structure (e.g., JSON object), but is sufficient for a simple stats endpoint.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by describing the breakdown (recent, YTD, all-time, by sport) beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and specifies the resource 'all-time and recent statistics for the authenticated athlete.' It differentiates from siblings like get_athlete_profile (basic info) and get_recent_activities (raw activities) by emphasizing aggregated statistics broken down by recency and sport.

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 implies use for retrieving aggregated stats but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar siblings (e.g., monthly_summary, weekly_summary). The context is clear enough for an AI to infer, but explicit alternatives would improve it.

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