get_athlete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses what data is returned ('sport zones and thresholds'), but lacks information on caching behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get'.

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 of seven words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or wasted text.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning specific return content ('sport zones and thresholds'), but lacks details on response structure, data types, or complete field enumeration. Given the tool's simplicity (no inputs) and lack of annotations, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring rules, zero parameters warrant a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('athlete profile'), and scope ('including sport zones and thresholds'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (get_activities, get_fitness, etc.) by focusing on static profile data rather than time-series or activity data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fitness (which may overlap with 'thresholds') or get_wellness. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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