read_training_summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real context on top: default grouping, the definition of a week (profile's first weekday), the default 12-week window, and that weights are in the profile unit. It does not describe pagination or result shape limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentence with the most important scoping information (default grouping and range) front-loaded and no filler. The nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers scope, defaults, grouping granularity, and units. It does not spell out what happens when only one of from/to is supplied, a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% — both date parameters are documented, but groupBy has an enum with no description. The description compensates by supplying groupBy's default (week), the from/to default (last 12 weeks), and the semantics of week boundaries and weight units, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (training totals) and enumerates exactly what is aggregated — workouts, minutes, completed work sets, reps, volume — plus the range total, which separates it in substance from listing siblings like read_workouts or read_exercise_history. The verb is implied rather than stated, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful defaults (group by week, last 12 weeks) that tell the agent how the tool behaves when called bare, but there is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as read_workouts for individual sessions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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