weekly_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering (oldest first) and week boundary (Monday), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how it handles partial weeks, or what the response format is. Some value added, but incomplete.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the key facts (volume, workouts, sets, week start, ordering) are front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it omits important parameter guidance, though conciseness itself is excellent.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the parameter's meaning and the nature of the returned data. It explains the data categories but not the 'weeks' parameter or response shape, leaving an agent under-informed when customizing the call.

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% and the description does not mention the 'weeks' parameter at all. The agent cannot learn from the description what 'weeks' controls (e.g., number of weeks to return), so the parameter's meaning is left entirely to inference from its name and default 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 provides training volume, workouts, and sets per week, with a Monday start and oldest-first ordering. It distinguishes this from siblings like exercise_history or prs by focusing on weekly aggregates, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like exercise_history or session_card. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer when weekly_volume is the right choice.

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