garmin_training_readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool exposes a readiness score/level with sleep, HRV, recovery-time, and load inputs, which gives a reasonable sense of the returned data. However, it does not disclose score ranges, units, date behavior, or whether this is purely a read operation, though the resource name strongly implies retrieval.

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, short, front-loaded sentence fragment that names the core deliverable and its key inputs without redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 low complexity—one optional parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema—the description is serviceable for basic selection and invocation. It explains what the readiness metric consists of, but it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats that would fully orient an agent, especially with several closely related sibling tools available.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional date parameter with an ISO format description and a default of today. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the load; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource—Training Readiness score/level—and names its component inputs (sleep, HRV, recovery-time, load), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like garmin_sleep and garmin_hrv. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return,' so it stops short of a fully specified purpose statement.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_sleep, garmin_hrv, or garmin_today. It implies that this tool covers a composite readiness view, but it never states conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic.

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