list_training_plans_raw

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds context by revealing the tool returns raw, unstripped fields and includes entities/programs. This goes beyond the annotation, providing behavioral differentiation from the likely stripped variant.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has no filler. The second sentence gives practical context, making it efficient 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 has an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently clarifies the primary use case and raw-field behavior. It could have explained the status_list parameter's effect, but the overall context is mostly complete for a listing tool with a single optional filter.

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 the description does not mention the 'status_list' parameter at all. The schema only provides type info (array of integers or null) and a default, leaving the meaning of status codes unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 lists training plans with the specific behavior of not stripping API fields, and contrasts with the likely sibling list_training_plans. It uses a specific verb and resource with a distinguishing detail.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when the full plan payload is needed, including entities and programs' and gives an example use case (update_scheduled_workout). While it doesn't state when not to use it, the 'use this when' phrasing implies the alternative for simpler needs.

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