get_running

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the default window and the days-vs-start exclusivity, but says nothing about result limits, truncation, or empty-data behavior when no race is configured beyond the parenthetical.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the windowing rules, in three short sentences with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the final clause is compressed enough to require a second read.

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 does the work of characterizing the return payload (distance, pace, HR zones, spike flags, race plan status) and the default time window. For a 3-param read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; only date-format and result-size details are absent.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does explain that days selects the last N days ending at end (default today) and that start is mutually exclusive with days. It omits the accepted date format for start/end, which is the only real gap.

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?

States a specific resource (running) and enumerates the returned content (distance, pace, HR zones, spike flags, race plan status), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_sleep or get_activity. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5 under the differentiation criterion.

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?

Gives a concrete default (30 days) and an explicit alternative form (days=N ending at end), including the exclusion 'not with start'. That is real when-to-use guidance for the parameter modes, though it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over adjacent tools such as get_trends or get_activity.

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