List configured athletes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only enumeration, that results are scoped to this shared agent, and that personal metrics are excluded. This goes beyond the schema and directly manages expectations about what will and will not be returned.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action and result, followed by a short clarifying exclusion. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned (IDs and labels), the scope (this shared agent), and a key boundary (no personal metrics). The low complexity and simple contract make additional detail unnecessary.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document beyond noting that no input is required, which the empty schema already conveys. The description adds no unrelated parameter detail.

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 ('List'), resource ('athlete IDs and labels'), and scope ('available to this shared Catence agent'). The explicit exclusion of personal metrics distinguishes this enumeration tool from the many sibling tools that return metric 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 implies the tool is for discovering available athlete identifiers before working with metrics, and explicitly says no personal metrics are returned. However, it does not name any sibling alternative or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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