get_fitness_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (JSON string) and additional content (interpretations, recommendations), which goes beyond a bare 'get' statement. It does not mention data freshness or error behavior, but for a parameterless read-only tool, disclosure is adequate.

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 and well-structured with bullet points, front-loading the primary purpose. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'Returns' in both prose and a labeled section, but it is not excessive.

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 (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what metrics are included, interpretations, recommendations, and return format. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the returned metrics (CTL, ATL, TSB, Ramp Rate), which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('athlete's current fitness, fatigue, and form metrics') and enumerates concrete metrics (CTL, ATL, TSB, Ramp Rate). No sibling tool provides this summary, so it is clearly differentiated.

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 explains what the tool returns but does not state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context implies it is for training status overview, but there is no explicit guidance or naming of alternative tools.

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