get_segment_efforts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions read-only listing and pagination (per_page default 30) but omits any info on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. It also does not describe the output format, though output schema exists.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then an Args list. No unnecessary words, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the required parameter, optional filters, and pagination. It is complete enough for a simple listing tool, though it could mention how date filtering applies.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, so the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: segment_id as Strava segment ID, date parameters as ISO 8601 with example, and per_page with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool lists your efforts on a specific segment. It is specific with verb 'list' and resource 'efforts'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_segment_effort or get_segment_effort_streams, though the name helps.

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 usage for listing efforts with optional date filtering, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_segment_effort for a single effort or get_segment_effort_streams for streams.

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