get_training_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states what is returned and not whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, or how it treats past/upcoming plans. The read-only nature is only implied by the 'get' prefix. Some scope information is added ('enrolled in', plan types), but safety and data-freshness behavior are not disclosed.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the key phrase 'training plans the user is enrolled in' is front-loaded. It could be improved by using an explicit verb, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema, the description covers the core resource and scoping, and return values are left to the schema. Its main gap is the absence of guidance for choosing among the many sibling get/list tools, but the plan-type qualifier partially compensates.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supplement; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description's mention of user-enrolled plans is enough context for an agent to understand what the empty invocation returns.

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 identifies the resource ('training plans') and the exact scope ('the user is enrolled in'), plus the plan types ('Garmin Coach and custom plans'). It lacks a verb, relying on the tool name for the action, but this is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling workout tools.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_workouts or get_scheduled_workouts. The only hint is the 'enrolled in' scoping, which implies current/active plans but is not stated as a selection rule.

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