garmin_training_readinessCheck your daily training readiness score and understand the factors influencing it, such as sleep and recovery, to decide whether to train or rest.
Training readiness score for a day, with the factors that drove it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which signal a safe read operation that may return dynamic data. The description adds the detail that it returns the score 'for a day' and the 'factors that drove it,' which gives some context about the response scope. However, it does not disclose defaults (e.g., what happens when date is null), timezone handling, or behavior when no data exists, leaving gaps beyond what annotations cover.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a meaningful detail (factors) without redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a simple read tool.
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 optional parameter with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits any explanation of the date parameter, default behavior, or how to interpret the score. While the tool is simple, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.
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 makes no mention of the 'date' parameter at all. The only parameter is entirely undocumented, and the description does not compensate by explaining how date affects results, its format, or default behavior. This leaves the agent guessing about a critical input.
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 states a specific verb ('score') and resource ('training readiness for a day'), and mentions it includes the driving factors. It is clear about the core purpose but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like garmin_training_status or garmin_hrv, which could cause some ambiguity for an agent deciding among them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when to use training readiness over training status or other metrics, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context like needing prior data. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.