get_cycling_ftp

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 only states the retrieval action and resource, but does not disclose return units, data source, availability conditions, or how 'latest' is determined. This is a minimal gap for a zero-param getter but still leaves behavioral detail unexplained.

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, directly worded sentence that immediately states the resource and scope. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter, the description provides the essential meaning. However, it does not mention the expected return shape or units (e.g., watts), and with no output schema or annotations, an agent is left to infer those details.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing about parameters to clarify. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource (cycling FTP), and a specific scope ('latest'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_ftp_history and get_lactate_threshold by specifying cycling and recency.

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 usage is implied clearly: use this tool when the athlete's latest cycling FTP is needed. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer alternatives such as get_ftp_history, get_lactate_threshold, or get_max_metrics.

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