training_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how the 'date' parameter affects results, or any computation specifics. The description only lists output fields, leaving behavioral characteristics opaque.

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 short but includes redundancy ('训练状态' appears twice). While it is front-loaded, the repetition wastes an opportunity to add useful information. Overall, it is adequately sized but not maximally efficient.

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 lists key output metrics, which is useful, but given the tool has a parameter and no annotations, it should explain how 'date' is used and provide usage context. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but parameter semantics and behavioral context are missing, making it incomplete.

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 input schema has one 'date' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. Without any explanation of what 'date' means, its format, or default behavior, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 lists the tool's primary outputs (training status, ACWR, monthly load composition, VO2Max), which clarifies what the tool provides and distinguishes it from siblings like training_readiness and vo2max. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and repeats the tool name, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply lists outputs without contextual cues.

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