calculate_tid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the calculation and the three models, but does not disclose prerequisites like activity data availability, return format, or behavior when data is insufficient. Some behavioral context is present but limited.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately distinguishes the tool. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter schema and clear tool name, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select the tool. However, the lack of an output schema and any mention of return values means the agent must infer what the result looks like, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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 fully documents the single 'days' parameter with its type, default, and description. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level context, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and clearly identifies the resource ('3-zone Training Intensity Distribution'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_vdot by focusing on intensity distribution categories. The mention of Polarized 80/20 vs Pyramidal vs Threshold adds useful conceptual scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a training intensity distribution calculation is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as calculate_vdot or analyze_threshold, so it lacks exclusions.

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