WOD Coach: AI Personal Trainer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a payment requirement ('$0.35 USDC on Base via x402') and a safety behavior ('strict injury-safe exercise substitutions'), which are real additions. It does not describe the return format, latency, or failure modes expected of a generative planning tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The paragraph then mixes capability claims with pricing and a legal disclaimer ('Independent; not affiliated with HYROX'), some of which reads as marketing filler rather than invocation-relevant guidance.

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 6-parameter, paid, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys domain scope well but leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details (return shape, errors) uncovered. It is adequate but has clear gaps that the structured fields do not fill.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to a few fields ('equipment', 'goals and injuries' for user_context, '3-8 week periodised block' for weeks, 'single workout' for duration), but session_minutes and sessions_per_week are entirely undocumented, and no syntax or expected input format is given.

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 states a specific resource and capability: 'AI personal trainer and strength coach' producing a 'Personalised workout plan or training program.' It names concrete dimensions (equipment, goals, injuries, injury-safe substitutions), so an agent knows what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like generate_workout or get_weekly_programme, both of which sound like they also produce plans.

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?

It implies usage scenarios ('Home gym, full gym or bodyweight; single workout or 3-8 week periodised block. Fitness, CrossFit, HYROX-format racing, running') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings generate_workout, get_weekly_programme and race_pace_plan present, the agent is left to infer the routing itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: it discloses a mandatory cost/mechanism ($0.05 USDC on Base via x402), which is critical before invocation, plus an independence disclaimer. It falls short on the rest — nothing about determinism/randomness, whether the result is persisted, or what the response looks like.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the two facts an agent must know (cost, disclaimer). The enum dump is somewhat list-like but each item maps to a real input value, so it earns its space.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must carry the definition — it covers purpose, formats, and payment, but leaves the seed parameter and the returned workout's structure/determinism unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-param tool at 0% schema description coverage.

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, and it partially does: it spells out the format_type values (adding the useful gloss 'Engine (cardio)') and the style variants. It omits the seed parameter entirely, which is the one parameter whose semantics (deterministic vs random output) an agent most needs explained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Workout generator (WOD)') and enumerates the supported styles and workout formats, so the resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, name any sibling to differentiate from get_todays_wod, coach_programme, or warmup_generator; 'instant' only implicitly signals on-demand generation versus retrieving a stored programme.

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?

'Instant' weakly implies this is for one-off generation rather than a stored programme, which gestures at when to pick it over get_weekly_programme. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful traits: the return format ('Markdown plus a summary') and that access is free. It says nothing about failure modes (rest days, no programmed WOD) or freshness/caching of 'today'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scoped by source, with the return format appended. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the return format an agent would otherwise have to discover. The only real gap is undefined behavior when today has no programmed workout.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the workout as implicitly 'today's'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('today's programmed workout of the day'), names the originating programme, and flags a distinguishing attribute ('Free:'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_weekly_programme, so an agent must infer that this is the single-day slice of that weekly plan.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite get_weekly_programme and generate_workout being obvious siblings. The 'Free:' prefix hints at a tier/cost distinction but never states a selection condition.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is 'Free' and that future days expose only format/style, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the difference in detail between past/current and future days beyond that single hint.

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?

It is two tight sentences with no filler, and the key information (this week's schedule) is front-loaded. The parenthetical format list is informative rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so reasonably by listing the covered formats and explaining how future days are presented. For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only auth/usage context left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 states a specific resource (this week's training schedule) and enumerates the formats it covers (Engine, Strength & Power, Speed Run, Metcon, etc.). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling such as get_todays_wod or coach_programme to help the agent distinguish when this weekly view is preferred over a daily or coached one.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to see the week's schedule. The note that 'future days list only their format and style' hints at limitations but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any named alternative among the siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a paid model ('$0.01 USDC on Base') and an independence disclaimer, which are genuine traits an agent must know before calling. It does not, however, explain whether payment/auth must be arranged beforehand, nor any rate limits or failure behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the single run-on sentence is dense, and the exhaustive enumeration of all eight stations adds length without much selection value. It is informative yet bloated rather than tight.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description does describe deliverables (splits, run pace, transition time, strategy) reasonably well. However, it leaves the required 'target' format, the 'division' parameter, and prepayment behavior unexplained, so it is not fully 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'target' ('target finish time') and 'run_5k' ('an optional 5k check'), but gives no format guidance (e.g., time string syntax) and never mentions the 'division' enum parameter at all, leaving one of three params undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: a 'race pace calculator' that converts a target finish time into splits, paces, and strategy. It is clearly a computation tool rather than a workout generator, but it never names or contrasts against siblings like generate_workout or coach_programme, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. In a sibling set of six other fitness tools, the agent gets no routing help for choosing this calculator over a workout or programme tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses a paid call ($0.02 USDC on Base), the return shape (3-5 alternatives with prescriptions and stop signs), and a safety disclaimer ('physio-informed, not medical advice'). It omits payment/auth mechanics and any rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Purpose and cost are front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing keyword block ('Gym, home gym, CrossFit, functional fitness') is SEO filler that adds no invocation value for an agent.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover the essentials an agent needs: inputs with examples, output volume and content, cost, and a medical disclaimer. The main gap is the undocumented 'equipment' parameter and the absence of payment/auth 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'movement' and 'limitation' with useful examples, but never mentions the third parameter 'equipment' (defaulting to null), leaving that input undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (substitute an exercise) with concrete input examples (barbell back squat + knee pain) and a defined output (3-5 safe alternatives with prescriptions, cues, stop signs). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_workout or coach_programme, which are not injury-driven substitution.

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?

Implies the triggering condition well: use it when you have a movement plus an injury/limitation and need safer alternatives. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several non-obvious traits: a $0.01 USDC cost on Base (a payment/auth requirement), a bounded 5-20 minute duration, and a return format of structured blocks plus Markdown. It stops short of explaining how the payment is settled or what the 'structured blocks' contain.

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?

Front-loaded with the name and price, then scope, then duration/output. No sentence is wasted, though the trailing 'Gym, CrossFit, running' fragment is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it produces, its cost, its duration bounds, its session/prehab scope, and the return format (blocks + Markdown). The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the workout-generating siblings.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: session types map to 'session', prehab areas map to 'focus', and '5-20 minutes' bounds 'minutes', but it never states that 'focus' is an array or clarifies whether 'Gym, CrossFit, running' corresponds to the 'style' parameter. The mapping is inferable but not explicit.

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+resource (generates a targeted warm-up) and scopes it precisely with enumerated session types (strength, metcon, engine, speed run, zone 2) and prehab areas. An agent can separate this from generate_workout, coach_programme and race_pace_plan without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is implied: a warm-up matched to a session type, 5-20 minutes, with optional prehab. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings (e.g. vs generate_workout), so the agent must infer positioning.

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