get_coach_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the data source (Markdown files in the coach folder) and a caching-style caveat about already-loaded files, which implies a read-only, idempotent operation. It stops short of stating what happens if the folder or files are missing, or whether output is truncated.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the call-order rule. Every clause carries actionable information, with no restatement of the name 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 tool has no parameters and an output schema, so return-value structure need not be described here. Given that simplicity, the description covers source, content, and call ordering completely — the only conceivable addition would be error behavior for missing files, which is marginal.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misdescribes or omits argument behavior.

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 the exact resource (coaching context from the user's Markdown files in the coach folder) and enumerates its contents: role, planning rules, athlete profile. That makes it distinguishable from data-oriented siblings like get_recent_workouts or get_bio_age, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with read_training_notes, the closest neighbor.

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 gives an explicit ordering instruction ('Call this first before planning or reviewing training') plus a precise exclusion ('unless these files are already loaded'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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