get_user_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation via 'Returns,' which is basic transparency. Yet it does not explain the effect of optional parameters such as on_date or the default exclusion of include_closed, nor mention any edge behavior, leaving some ambiguity about what 'on record' means over time.

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 consists of two tightly written sentences: the first states the return value and the second gives a practical usage directive. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 fairly simple read-only tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the core return content and the primary use case in enough depth that an agent can decide to call it. It stops just short of being complete because it does not clarify how date-scoped queries behave or distinguish its output from sibling tools like get_week_review, but the absence of nested objects and output schema keeps the need low.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds no additional context about how on_date or include_closed influence the returned records; the agent must rely solely on the schema's short property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource list ('goals, races, injuries and notes on record for the user'), which tells an agent exactly what data is exposed. The additional directive 'Read this before giving training advice' clarifies the tool's intended role in the coaching workflow and sets it apart from the sibling data-retrieval tools by naming its unique content categories.

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 second sentence, 'Read this before giving training advice,' provides an explicit, actionable trigger for when this tool should be called, which is strong guidance. However, it does not contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_findings or get_training_insights, nor state conditions when this tool should not be used.

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