List training plans

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by listing the output fields and specifying the scope (coach's authored plans), though it does not mention pagination or error conditions. This is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key output fields without any extraneous content. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, owner scope, and returned attributes. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no further clarification is needed.

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 provides a complete description of the 'athlete' parameter, including its purpose and constraints, covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List', identifies the resource as 'coach's authored multi-week training plans', and enumerates the returned fields, making it clear and distinct from sibling tools like tp_get_training_plan which retrieves a single plan.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing training plans, and the optional athlete parameter provides context for coach accounts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as tp_get_training_plan or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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