Get training plan workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, setting the safety baseline. The description adds value by revealing the output structure (week/day organization and fields), which is behavior beyond what annotations capture.

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?

A single, focused sentence that states the scope and enumerates included fields. No redundant words or restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and a well-described output, the description covers essentials. It could mention how to obtain plan_id (e.g., via tp_list_training_plans), but that is a minor gap given the schema.

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?

Both parameters have complete schema descriptions (plan_id, athlete with coach guidance). The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

Description specifies the exact resource ('workouts of a training plan') and output format ('laid out by week/day') with a clear list of fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like tp_get_training_plan (plan metadata) and tp_get_workouts (general workouts).

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 usage (when you need plan workouts in week/day layout) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are present but not referenced, so the agent must infer differentiation from context.

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