Analyze Training Volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains what the tool computes, the time window applied, and the grouping options. It does not mention output format or behavior with no data, but the core read-only aggregation behavior is transparently described.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the computation and grouping options; the second provides the practical use case. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only aggregation tool with two optional, well-named parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape, but the aggregation semantics strongly imply what the output contains.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by defining 'last N days' for the days parameter and enumerating 'muscle group or exercise' for groupBy. This adds enough semantic meaning beyond the bare schema for both optional parameters.

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 ('Aggregates') with a clear resource ('sets/reps/volume over the last N days') and defines the grouping dimensions ('muscle group or by exercise'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling history-retrieval and update tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to spot over/under-trained muscle groups before proposing a workout.' It provides a clear use context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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