get_training_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'days' parameter is capped at 28, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation is a gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is clear and minimal. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with a 'Returns' section.

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 an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a single parameter, the description is adequate but lacks context on when to use it versus similar metrics tools. The cap at 28 is a good detail, but more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description does explain the 'days' parameter ('Number of recent days to summarise. Capped at 28.'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default. However, it doesn't clarify the default behavior (7 days) or the exact format of the output, so it partially compensates but not fully.

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 returns 'Daily training load with acute and chronic load and current status', which is a specific resource (training load) with a clear scope (daily, acute/chronic/status). It distinguishes from siblings like get_training_readiness and get_fitness_metrics by focusing on load metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage by stating it summarizes recent days, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over get_training_readiness or get_fitness_metrics. The 'days' parameter is explained, but no guidance on typical use cases or exclusions is provided.

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