list_training_plans

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'in the Coros account', but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data scoping, pagination, or authentication requirements. The default status list behavior is already in the schema description, so the description itself adds little beyond the annotations.

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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description is sufficient for basic use. It does not explicitly mention how it differs from the 'raw' sibling, but the output schema and sibling names provide enough context for an agent to infer the tool's role. Slightly more detail about the distinction would make it complete.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter 'status_list' at 100%, including its default and meaning. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and no extra value is provided.

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 'List training plans in the Coros account' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_training_plans_raw', which likely serves a similar yet distinct purpose, so it misses the distinction requirement for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over 'list_training_plans_raw' or any other sibling, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the default parameter behavior, but that is parameter semantics, not usage guidance.

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