read_week_plan

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: how rotation mode counts weekday routines on top of the loop, why a day was planned (plannedBy reasons), missed-day notes, and that the rotation answers only for today. Still no error or empty-plan behavior.

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?

One dense paragraph thick with backticked internal field names; it reads like a data dictionary compressed into prose. Every clause is information-bearing, but the wall-of-text structure and absence of front-loaded framing hurt scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape and does so in detail, including the rotating vs. weekday modes and per-day annotations. Only edge cases (no plan configured, invalid `from`) are unaddressed.

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 50% (`days` is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by stating defaults for both parameters ('from' default today, 'days' default 7) and framing `from` as the profile's local calendar day context. It adds real meaning over the bare integer type.

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 ('the training plan') and then specifies precisely what the payload contains (schedule, round, rotation, week, per-day plan). It is distinguishable from read_routines (the saved loop) and write_week_plan, but the read verb is only implied and the opening line is terse.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus siblings such as read_routines, read_workouts, or read_day_plan, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent content is the default values for `from` and `days`, which is not routing guidance.

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