get_training_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this tool is read-only, whether it requires any specific data to be present, or any side effects. For a tool returning derived metrics, the lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, using a single phrase to convey the core purpose. It front-loads the key idea and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by using a complete sentence for clarity in multilingual contexts.

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, the description does not need to detail return values. The tool has only one required parameter, making it relatively simple. However, the description lacks differentiation from many siblings (e.g., 'get_hill_score', 'get_endurance_score') and provides no constraints or prerequisites, leaving the agent partially informed.

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 tool has one required parameter ('activity_id'). The description does not explain what 'activity_id' refers to or how to obtain it. Although the tool context implies it relates to an activity, the agent receives no explicit guidance beyond the schema type. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Training effect of activity (aerobic/anaerobic training load)' clearly identifies the output resource and its subcategories. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_activity' (raw data) and 'training_status' (overall status) by specifying the training load aspect. However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'training_readiness', 'get_endurance_score', or 'get_lactate_threshold'. The description does not state preconditions (e.g., activity must have recorded heart rate) or exclude cases where training effect may be unavailable.

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