calculate_acwr

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the computed metrics and does not mention data requirements, assumptions, return format, or side effects. For a calculation tool this is a notable gap, though not misleading.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the key metric names and the action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description names the three metrics but omits details like output format, interpretation, or underlying data needed. It is enough to select the tool but not fully self-contained for understanding results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculates' and names the exact metrics (Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio, Monotony, Strain), distinguishing this from sibling tools like calculate_tid or calculate_vdot. It clearly states what the tool 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 implies the tool is used when ACWR, Monotony, or Strain are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_tid or calculate_vdot. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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