analyze_training_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns daily trends and form interpretation, implying read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The behavioral intent is clear but not fully transparent.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with key acronyms and purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what the tool returns) without losing conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists (though not visible), the description is adequate for a tool that calculates training load metrics. It mentions the trend and interpretation over N days. However, it does not explain the output structure or how the tool relates to the athlete's data, which might be needed for full contextual understanding.

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 explain the parameters. It references 'over the last N days,' which loosely describes the 'days' parameter, but 'end_date' is not mentioned at all. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema structure.

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's purpose: analyzing CTL/ATL/TSB daily trends and providing current form interpretation over N days. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_activities or get_activity_summary by focusing on training load metrics. However, it assumes knowledge of the acronyms CTL/ATL/TSB, which might not be immediately clear to all agents.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for training load trend analysis, but does not compare with sibling tools or specify contexts where this tool is preferred or inappropriate.

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