analyze_training_period

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by detailing the outputs (volume, breakdown, trends, insights), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement, bulleted outputs, and examples. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

The description, combined with the input schema and output schema, fully covers the tool's functionality. All parameters are optional and well-documented, and the outputs are summarized. The context from siblings helps define its role.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example period formats, which clarifies the period parameter beyond the schema description, slightly increasing value.

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 'Analyze training over a specified period with comprehensive insights' and lists specific outputs (total volume, activity breakdown, trends, performance insights). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_activity_details or compare_activities by focusing on period-level analysis.

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 implies use for comprehensive period analysis, and the context of siblings suggests when not to use (e.g., for single activity details). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools.

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