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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (rebuild whole program), the data source (stored profile), and latency (~20s AI generation). However, it does not warn about potential data loss or reversibility, and lacks detail on side effects such as whether the previous program is overwritten or whether a changelog is created.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and source, the second gives usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool, the description provides sufficient context: action, source, latency, and when to use it. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists, and the material facts are covered. The description is complete enough for an agent to know when and why to invoke this tool.

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required given the absence of parameters. Baseline 4 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 uses the specific verb 'Rebuild' and identifies the resource as 'the whole program' from 'the stored profile', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_program or log_workout. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use after a profile change or a plateau', providing clear trigger conditions for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but still offers clear context.

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