get_weekly_training

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful aggregation semantics: fractional working sets counted 1 for the target muscle and 0.5 for main secondary muscles, frequency as days trained, and the rule that workout-free weeks are dropped from the average unless skip_empty_weeks=false. These are non-obvious behavioral traits not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a scoped paragraph on per-week output, then the average and empty-week caveat, then filtering. Every sentence conveys distinct information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned fields and the `average_per_week` payload. The only real gap is date-parameter format and edge behavior for the start/end window.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters. It explains `muscle` well (example plus group enumeration) and fully defines `skip_empty_weeks`, but start_date and end_date are only implied by the 8-week default — no format, inclusivity, or empty-string meaning is given, so two of four parameters remain under-specified.

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?

Names a specific resource (weekly training load) and enumerates exactly what a week row contains: workouts, minutes, working sets, per-muscle fractional sets and frequency. It does not name a sibling such as get_progress or get_sessions to disambiguate, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: default window is the last 8 weeks, and filtering is by `muscle` or a listed group. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_progress, get_sessions, or get_exercise_history, leaving tool selection to inference.

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