get_available_plans

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait: plans listed here can surface the values last trained, unlike get_plan's stored values. It does not address permissions, whether plans are user-editable, or how the default (own_only=false) changes result breadth.

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 dense sentences cover a lot of ground with little waste, but the opening fragment ('Training plans in the app with planId: ...') is telegraphic and the semicolon-joined clause about last-trained values is easy to miss. Front-loading the scope and the parameter meaning is good; phrasing could be cleaner.

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?

This is a low-complexity, one-parameter read; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers what the tool returns, the parameter's effect, and how it differs from get_plan. Only minor gaps remain around sibling selection and default behavior.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description fully defines it: True restricts results to the user's own plans, and by contrast the default includes trainer and gym-template plans. That is nearly the complete semantic of the one 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 states the resource (training plans with planId) and its scope: the user's own USER_TRAINING_PLAN plus plans from trainers and gym templates. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_plan, so an agent can separate the two. The verb is only implied ('get'), but the resource and scope are specific enough to act on.

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 explains the single switch ('own_only=True returns only the user's own plans') and hints at a distinction from get_plan via the last sentence. It never states when to call this instead of get_plan, get_recent_workouts, or get_coach_context, so routing still requires inference.

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