tp_training_load_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return content (weekly/monthly TSS, ramp rate, comparison) but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, required authentication, or any side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks safety cues.

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 short (three sentences including the arg list) and front-loads the purpose. Each line adds value, though the argument section could be integrated more naturally.

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 existence of an output schema (not visible), the description covers the key outputs, but without seeing the schema it's unclear if more detail is needed. For a tool analyzing load trends, the description is adequate but does not explain how to interpret the comparison or ramp rate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the 'days' parameter as 'Number of days to analyze (default 90)'. This adds clarity beyond the schema, which only provided a default value, but does not elaborate on acceptable range or impact of different values.

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 analyzes training load trends over time and lists return values (TSS totals, averages, ramp rate, comparison). It is specific about the resource (training load) and verb (analyze trends), but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like tp_fitness_trend or tp_performance_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_fitness_trend or tp_workout_analysis. The description does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or how contexts differ.

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