get_training_load_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the default time window (90 days) and the chart output (PNG), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any edge cases (e.g., empty data, timezone handling). For a chart tool, this is adequate but not thorough; a 3 reflects the missing details beyond the basic output type.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences, and the most critical information (chart type and metrics) is front-loaded. The second sentence provides a useful use-case metaphor but adds a bit of flourish that could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

For a relatively simple chart tool with only two optional parameters, the description covers the output type, default window, and usage context. However, it lacks explicit parameter documentation and any mention of error handling or response format details beyond 'PNG'. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is only minimally complete; an agent could call it correctly with defaults but would need to guess at custom date ranges.

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% – the description does not mention the 'newest' and 'oldest' parameters at all. It only hints at a default 90-day window, implying customization is possible, but it never explains what these parameters control or their format (e.g., date strings, relative dates). Since the schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics. The default hint saves it from a 1.

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 generates a PNG chart of specific performance metrics (CTL, ATL, TSB) over time, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_training_readiness or get_wellness. The verb 'get' and resource 'training load chart' are explicit, and the mention of the chart type and metrics leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides a clear contextual trigger: use when the shape of the data (spike, plateau, climb) is more informative than raw numbers. This is a good usage hint, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The guidance is useful but leaves the selection between this and numeric data tools to inference.

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