get_training_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and the description gives useful detail about what is included, but it does not disclose whether the status is only available for certain dates, how 'curated' filtering behaves, or any limitations around data availability.

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 well-ordered: a one-line summary, a brief expansion of what is returned, and the required argument format. No sentence is wasted, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description to explain return details. The description still gives an adequate high-level picture of what the returned status contains, though it could be more complete by addressing the overlap with sibling metric-specific tools and the intended use case for the aggregated status.

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 schema only declares 'date' as a string with no description, while the tool description supplies 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.' Since schema coverage is 0%, this format clarification is essential and provides real value beyond the schema, though it does not add further semantic detail such as valid date ranges or timezone handling.

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 clearly states that the tool returns training status and enumerates key metrics (load, VO2 max, recovery, readiness indicators) with the phrase 'comprehensive training status.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like get_training_readiness or get_vo2max_trend, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for a broad, aggregated training status view, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of the many metric-specific sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the word 'comprehensive' and the listed metrics.

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