get_saved_highlights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the semantic role of the returned data (waypoint attractors the route combiner prefers), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the saved set can be empty.

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?

Three compact lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the purpose. Minor duplication of 'saved/bookmarked' does not cost meaningful space.

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, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and with zero parameters there is no input contract to document. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: why the agent should care about this data.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies by the rubric.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('your saved/bookmarked Komoot highlights') and clarifies the ownership scope ('personally saved'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_highlights, which presumably returns highlights generally rather than the user's saved set.

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?

It explains the downstream purpose — these highlights act as waypoint attractors in combined-route building — which implies when the agent would care about them. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling get_highlights, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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