Get segment

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable context: the exact HTTP method (GET) and the conditional behavior around the athlete's personal-record effort depending on the read_all scope. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 core purpose ('A single segment') and includes necessary technical details without redundancy.

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 1-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the response (a segment, with optional PR) and the relevant API context. It lacks explicit failure/error behavior, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (id is described as 'The segment identifier.'). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as retrieving a single segment by ID, using a specific endpoint (GET /segments/{id}) and mentioning the optional personal-record effort. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like strava_list_starred_segments.

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 fetching one segment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion scenarios. The scope condition for the personal record provides some context, but it is not a direct comparison to available siblings.

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