list-athlete-routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination' and 'authenticated athlete', which adds some context about authentication and data handling. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Lists the routes created by the authenticated athlete') and includes key behavioral context ('with pagination'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication requirements, response structure, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for completeness.

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 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'perPage') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('routes created by the authenticated athlete'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get-route' (which fetches a single route) or 'explore-segments' (which explores public segments), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 by mentioning 'authenticated athlete' and 'pagination', suggesting it's for retrieving multiple routes with pagination. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-route' (for a single route) or 'get-all-activities' (for activities instead of routes), leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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