get-segment-effort

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 merely states the data returned and does not mention authentication requirements, request limits, error behavior, or the return format. For a read operation, this is a notable gap, though the description is not misleading.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Returns' and clearly specifies the resource and data types. There is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient 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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter and no output schema, so the description's list of return data types (timing, power, heart rate) provides moderate completeness. However, it does not describe the full response structure or error cases, and the absence of annotations means the description alone must cover safety and usage constraints, which it does not fully do.

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 already provides a complete description of the single parameter (effortId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only referring to 'a specific segment effort' which directly maps to the effortId. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: it returns timing, power, and heart rate data for a specific segment effort. The verb 'Returns' plus the resource 'specific segment effort' and data types distinguish it from siblings like list-segment-efforts (which lists multiple efforts) and get-segment (which focuses on segment details).

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 phrase 'for a specific segment effort' implies this tool is for retrieving a single effort's data, giving clear context on the primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of list-segment-efforts or provide exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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