get_user_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions special authorization, but lacks detail on how to obtain it, error responses, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated). The return format is not described, though an 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 short, with two sentences for purpose and a bulleted Args section. It is front-loaded with key information. No irrelevant content, but the Args list could be integrated into the prose slightly more smoothly.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no required parameters and optional date filters, the description misses details like whether the user must have specific roles, how authorization is checked, and what the default behavior is (e.g., returns all data if no dates provided). It is minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the tool text are essential. They provide basic semantics: from_date and to_date are filters with YYYY-MM-DD format, limit sets max results. However, they don't clarify if dates are inclusive/exclusive, or the behavior when omitted (the schema shows defaults of null, which suggests no filtering for dates). This adds some value but not complete clarity.

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 action 'Get user metadata' and lists specific data types included (goals, weight history, HR, sleep, aerobic speed, FTP). This distinguishes it somewhat from sibling tools like get_metrics or get_workouts, but could be more precise about the scope of 'metadata'.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires special API authorization', which hints at a prerequisite. It does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_metrics), nor does it specify conditions when it should not be used.

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