get_current_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well: it explains the status vocabulary, warns that planned_km is the reliable number and raw distance_km may be blank on interval days, and clarifies what the coach's session vs. SisRUN-matched delivered data means.

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 structured enumeration with no filler words, and all listed items are meaningful. It is slightly long and runs the items together in one sentence, so a bulleted or shorter phrasing would be improve readability without losing content.

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?

For a parameterless read tool, the description is almost complete: it covers the data included, notable field quirks, and status meanings. It does not specify things like timezone, but that is a minor omission given the output schema exists and the intended meaning is clear.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything needed. The description adds value by focusing on the output structure, which is appropriate given the zero-parameter context.

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 resource by saying 'The current week's training plan' and enumerates what it contains. It is more than a tautology and distinguishes from siblings by the 'current week' qualifier, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not directly compare to siblings.

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 explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_week or get_upcoming. The 'current week' phrasing implies the usage context, but there is no direct guidance about alternatives or when not to use it.

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