get_training_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns' training status but does not explain any operational behavior, such as required permissions, whether the date is a single day or a range, how metrics are computed, or how the tool behaves with invalid or missing data. This is a real gap for an unannotated tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The list of metrics is useful, but the opening phrase 'Get training status with curated metrics' is somewhat redundant with the 'Returns comprehensive training status' line, so it is not perfectly tight.

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?

The output schema exists, so return structures are documented elsewhere. However, given the large sibling list and the lack of usage guidance, the description does not fully orient an agent on when this tool is the right choice or what distinguishes it from adjacent training metrics tools. It is adequate but has clear contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful detail by specifying the date format as YYYY-MM-DD and naming the parameter. With only one parameter, this is nearly sufficient, though it could clarify whether the date represents a single day or a range endpoint.

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 resource ('training status') and lists the included metrics: load, VO2 max, recovery, and training readiness. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like get_training_readiness or get_training_load_trend, so the agent may struggle to pick this over similar tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many training-related siblings. The description is purely declarative and gives no exclusions, alternatives, or context to help an agent choose correctly among get_training_readiness, get_training_load_trend, and similar tools.

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