get-training-definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention response format, potential pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimal and adds little beyond what the name already implies.

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 a single, concise sentence that earns its place. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple purpose.

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 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly based on the plural scope. It communicates the core function clearly. However, it could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that it returns a list of all training definitions, but the current wording effectively conveys this.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter-related claims, allowing the schema to fully define the invocation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all training definitions,' which precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get-training-definition' by using the plural 'definitions' and 'all,' indicating a bulk retrieval rather than a single item.

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 usage is implied by the phrase 'List all' – that this tool is for retrieving the full set of training definitions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular 'get-training-definition' or any other alternative, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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