get_training_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the operation retrieves data; it does not mention read-only behavior, potential absence of training effect data, error behavior, or anything about the response beyond what the output schema might cover.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block adds relevant parameter clarification rather than fluff, though it is slightly redundant with the schema.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not address edge cases such as activities that may not have training effect data, which would be valuable for an agent selecting and using this tool reliably.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that activity_id is 'ID of the activity to retrieve training effect for.' This adds useful meaning over the bare integer schema property, though it does not add format or constraint details.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get training effect data for a specific activity.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that retrieve other activity metrics, such as get_activity or get_activity_splits.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only says it gets training effect data for an activity, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected from the large sibling list.

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