tp_get_fitness

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets a trend, implying read-only, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Additional context about the return format or data handling is missing.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with two clauses. Every word adds value (verb, resource with acronyms, scope of date support). No unnecessary 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?

Despite low complexity, the description lacks explanation of acronyms (CTL/ATL/TSB) and expected output format. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what agents can expect as a return value. The tool's purpose is clear but context is insufficient for full autonomous use.

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 100% with all 4 parameters described. The description adds a high-level note about historical date ranges but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. It achieves the baseline for well-documented schema.

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 the tool retrieves fitness/fatigue trends (CTL/ATL/TSB), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_get_peaks or tp_get_nutrition. The verb 'Get' and resource 'fitness/fatigue trend' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions support for historical date ranges, which is already implied by the parameters. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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