Get current training plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance: the 'if any' clause indicates the tool may return an empty result when no plan exists, and it specifies the returned fields (plan name, start date, workouts by day). This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the key output fields. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has no parameters, an output schema is present (as noted in context), and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient information: the resource type, the conditional nature ('if any'), and the expected return contents. Nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-specific detail. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is warranted.

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 'Get', the resource 'training plan', and specifies the returned data: plan name, start date, and workouts by day. It distinguishes from siblings like get_athlete_profile (profile info) and list_workout_library (library of workouts) by focusing on the currently followed plan.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the active plan, not for browsing the workout library or fetching a specific workout. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent. The context is clear enough for a competent agent to decide, so a 4 is appropriate.

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