get_route_streams

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions three fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the response format (list vs object), or any limitations. With zero annotation coverage, the description falls short.

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 very short (2 sentences) and front-loaded. However, the second sentence redundantly restates the parameter info, and the first sentence could be slightly more efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should fully explain the return structure. It only lists three example fields without indicating if the response is a list, units, or any other details. Insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 only parameter 'route_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description restates 'The Strava route ID', adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and title.

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 it gets stream data for a route, listing specific data types (distance, altitude, latlng). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_route' (meta) and 'get_activity_streams' (different resource).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'export_route_gpx' or 'get_route'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or expected use cases.

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