report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool 'presents only — it does not judge' and implies comparison against recent history, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or other operational constraints.

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 and front-loads the core purpose before its parameter note and reading guidance. The only inefficiency is the opaque '§16.2' reference and an Args section that covers just one of eight parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less description, but the tool has 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and none are explained except `run`. For an agent to invoke it correctly, the description should clarify the roles of the other filtering and comparison parameters.

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 there are 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the `run` parameter (accepting run_id, activity_id, or Garmin file id, with empty meaning latest), leaving last_n, cluster, end_date, run_type, direction, segment_id, and start_date undocumented in both schema and description.

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 identifies a report for one run against its recent history, which is a specific resource and scope. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling metric-oriented tools like basic_metrics or session_series, and the internal label '§16.2' adds little external meaning.

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?

It gives output-reading guidance ('Read `notable` first, then `unenforced`') and states that eliminating causes is the caller's work, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings such as basic_metrics or efficiency_factor. The post-run context is implied, not explicitly framed as when-to-use guidance.

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