Get training plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (weeks, per-week duration/distance, sport breakdown, description), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Summary of one training plan') and then uses a colon-separated list to convey content. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature and strong annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's output. It could be improved by explicitly pointing to related tools (e.g., tp_list_training_plans for IDs, tp_get_training_plan_workouts for detailed workouts), but the summary by 'one plan' already avoids major ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (athlete and plan_id) fully described in the input schema. The description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 returns a summary of one training plan and lists specific content (weeks, per-week duration/distance, sport breakdown, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_list_training_plans (multiple plans) and tp_get_training_plan_workouts (workouts, not summary).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies scope via 'one training plan', but does not mention tp_list_training_plans for finding plan IDs or tp_get_training_plan_workouts for workout-level details.

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