get_training_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond 'no params', which the empty schema already makes self-evident — no return shape, no pagination behavior, no indication of whether plans are user-scoped or global.

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 short clause with no padding, and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness comes at the cost of substance rather than reflecting disciplined concision.

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 a large sibling set of closely related training-plan tools, the description should at minimum describe the shape of the result and how this list differs from get_training_plan_by_id. Neither is present, leaving the agent unable to predict what comes back.

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 is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The statement 'no params' is consistent with the empty schema, though it is redundant.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('get_training_plans' → 'GETs /trainingplan-service/trainingplan/plans') with no explanation of what a training plan is or what the response contains. It names an HTTP verb and a raw endpoint rather than the user-facing resource or scope, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_training_plan_by_id, get_training_plan_workouts, or get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id.

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?

'no params' weakly implies a list-everything operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the several sibling training-plan tools an agent must choose between. The agent gets no routing guidance whatsoever.

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