get_performance_curves

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint: true). The description reinforces that and specifies the data types (power, pace, heart-rate). However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits) are disclosed, which is adequate given the annotations.

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, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and constraints (read-only, specific data). Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 has an output schema (documenting return values) and annotations, the description covers the essential action. However, it lacks explanation of the 'curves' parameter and how the tool integrates with typical workflows. Adequate but incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions curve types but does not describe the 'sport' (required) or 'curves' (default: '42d') parameters. This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance for parameter values.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('power, pace, and heart-rate duration curves'), with a specific scope ('curves'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on drafting plans and personal context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 read-only access via 'without modifying data,' but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_athlete_profile or get_training_context. It provides minimal context for selection.

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