get_training_insights

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context on its own. It does indicate a read-only retrieval ('Returns') and lists the data domains, which is helpful. However, it does not explain how the 'weekly' window is determined, how the optional 'days' parameter affects results, or any aggregation behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the outcome and organizes the included metrics in a scannable list. There is no fluff or repetition, though it could have briefly addressed the 'days' parameter without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having only one optional parameter, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and it sits among many overlapping sibling tools (get_week_review, get_sleep_data, get_recovery_status, get_stress_levels). The description fails to explain how 'days' shapes the request or how this summary differs from get_week_review, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation and routing.

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 only parameter, 'days', is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description (0% schema description coverage). The description never mentions 'days' or explains its relationship to the weekly summary, such as whether it overrides the default week or controls look-back. The agent must guess from the parameter name alone, so the description adds zero semantic value.

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 a combined weekly training summary and enumerates the included components (latest activity, recent workouts, sleep, recovery, stress). This gives a specific, understandable purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similarly named sibling get_week_review.

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 this tool is for a high-level weekly overview by combining multiple metrics, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that individual getters like get_sleep_data or get_recovery_status are better for focused queries, nor does it route to get_week_review for a possibly different weekly review.

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