get_athlete_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that thresholds carry as_of and is_stale flags, explains the operational consequence of staleness (prescribing against a stale FTP), and notes that not_available marks platform limitations rather than profile gaps. It stops short of covering auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds return contents and caveats in short paragraphs. Every sentence carries information, though the multi-paragraph format is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a no-argument read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully annotates the tricky fields (as_of, is_stale, not_available). Combined with the zero-parameter schema, the definition gives the agent everything needed to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 arguments, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No arguments,' which is consistent with the empty input schema and leaves no ambiguity about invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and then enumerates exactly what it returns (LTHR, cycling/running FTP, HR zone floors, VO2max, weight, height, unit preferences). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_cycling_ftp, get_lactate_threshold, get_user_profile, and get_unit_system, which each cover a subset of this data.

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 gives a clear rationale for use — 'the numbers that make an absolute heart rate or power target meaningful for this athlete rather than for a generic one' — which tells the agent to fetch this before prescribing absolute targets. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., versus get_user_profile or get_lactate_threshold).

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