list-segment-efforts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by mentioning the returned data (time, distance, PR/KOM rank), but it does not address pagination, ordering, rate limits, or the exact scope of 'authenticated athlete's efforts' beyond what the name implies. It is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the specific action, resource, and key output details. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose, scope (authenticated athlete), and result contents. It could be improved by explicitly noting pagination behavior or that it returns an array, but the perPage parameter partially covers this. Overall it is nearly complete.

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%, so all parameters are already documented structurally. The description only mentions 'optional date range filtering,' which maps to startDateLocal/endDateLocal, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the authenticated athlete's efforts on a segment, specifying the output includes time, distance, and PR/KOM rank. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like get-segment-effort (single effort) and get-segment-leaderboard (global leaderboard).

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 for viewing a user's own segment efforts and optionally filtering by date range, but it does not explicitly specify when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get-segment-effort) or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for a self-explanatory tool, but not explicit.

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