Get Coach Parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the tool being a prerequisite for set_coach_parameters and that it returns defaults, ranges, and current values in one call. However, it doesn't describe the return format or whether the seven parameters are always present, which would add further behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is concise and actionable.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned, when to call it, and why. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure, but with no output schema and a simple read operation, the description carries enough weight for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (defaults, allowed ranges, current values) and its role as a precursor to set_coach_parameters. With 0 params, baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool reports seven training-state tuning parameters with their default values, allowed ranges, and current values in one call. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('seven training-state tuning parameters'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling set_coach_parameters by explicitly positioning itself as the read counterpart.

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 explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE set_coach_parameters and explains why: it is the right first step to learn what can be set and what it currently is, rather than discovering ranges by trial and error. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool.

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