Get User Stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-only retrieval operation and explains the target-user behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, data freshness, or how the imperial parameter alters results, leaving some behavioral context implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the returned data scope, and the target selection in a compact and scannable way.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the primary purpose and username behavior, but omits the meaning of 'imperial' and any guidance about authentication or unit conventions, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 compensate. It partially explains 'username' by stating stats are for the logged-in user or a specified username, but it does not explain the 'imperial' boolean or its effect on the output. This leaves one parameter semantically underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('lifetime totals and per-sport breakdown stats'), and clarifies scope ('logged-in user or specified username'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on recent workouts, training summaries, or VO2 max history.

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 conveys a clear context for use—retrieving aggregate lifetime stats—and implies that it is the appropriate tool for that purpose. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the precise scope effectively separates it from the sibling tools.

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