tp_performance_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes output content, not behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only summary tool, more transparency on data recency or calculation method would be beneficial.

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 concise paragraph with a clear list of returns. It is efficiently structured but could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the purpose before parameter details.

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 output schema exists (context signal), the return values are adequately described. The description covers all key aspects of the tool's function with 0 required parameters, though it lacks details on data source or prerequisites.

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%, but the description explains the 'sport' parameter (type, default 'Bike', examples) and 'days' (number of days, default 90). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though enum values for sport could be made explicit.

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 an 'aggregated performance summary for a sport over time' and lists specific outputs (volume, intensity distribution, consistency metrics, PR timeline). It uses specific verbs and resource naming, and the purpose is distinguishable from siblings like tp_fitness_trend or tp_training_load_summary.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_training_load_summary or tp_fitness_trend. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal scenarios is given.

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