elsa-agent-gateway

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The readOnlyHint=true annotation suggests no data mutation, but the description's phrase 'te lleva a unirte' could imply initiating a state change, creating subtle ambiguity. No additional constraints or side effects are disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description lacks explanation of the output format, what 'te lleva a unirte' entails (e.g., redirection vs. actual action), and does not address preferred_days. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it leaves several gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 description references 'volumen y zona' corresponding to weekly_volume_km and location, adding context to those parameters. However, preferred_days is not mentioned, and schema coverage is 67% (moderate). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 tool's purpose: to recommend a club based on volume and zone, and guide the user to join/confirm an event. It specifies the resource (club) and action (recommend and lead), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'plan_my_block', though the contexts are different.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose 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?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a periodized block with readiness and leads to activation. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though the activation aspect could be clarified whether it triggers state changes or just provides a link. No direct contradiction; the description enriches understanding.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, outcome, and next step. It is front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability, but no extraneous content.

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 simple schema (3 params, no enums, no nested objects), the presence of read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its outcome. It does not detail return format, but the tool's purpose is clear. Sibling context helps. Minor gap: no explicit mention of parameter roles, but schema fills that.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description does not explicitly detail parameters but relates 'goal_event' and 'event_date' to the training block context. It omits 'recent_training' but that is optional. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics, the description adds only marginal context, meeting the baseline.

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 tool returns a periodized cycling training block (base/build/peak/taper) for a goal event with a readiness verdict and leads to activation in ELSA. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'match_me_a_club' which is about club matching.

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 implied (for planning a training block towards an event), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tool serves a completely different purpose, so confusion is minimal, but direct guidance is missing.

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