get_segment_streams

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

The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether all stream types are returned vs. only those listed. Without annotations, the burden falls on the description, which 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 concise, with two sentences and no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though a structured format for parameters would improve clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it omits details about return format, possible stream types beyond examples, and any operational constraints.

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 description adds the phrase 'The Strava segment ID' to the parameter, providing meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is minimal but acceptable compensation.

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 resource 'stream data for a segment', with specific example stream types (distance, altitude, latlng). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_segment (which returns segment details) and get_route_streams, though explicit contrast is absent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_segment_effort_streams or get_activity_streams. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for use.

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