get_training_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adequately states that the tool returns aggregate statistics (summaries) and hints at the types of data included. It does not disclose data freshness or caching, but for a simple read-only operation with no parameters, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that captures the tool's core function without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the output contains (workouts, frequency, streaks, patterns). It could be slightly more detailed about the output structure, but it is sufficient for a simple aggregate tool.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivial). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no extra parameter info, but none is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get aggregate training statistics' and lists concrete examples (total workouts, exercise frequency, streaks, workout patterns), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_workout_history (individual workouts) or get_trainer_analysis (likely more analytical).

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 implies the tool is for aggregate summaries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_workout_history or get_exercise_progress. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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