get_coaching_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the tool combines recent trends and returns a structured summary, listing key fields. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, nor any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The fact that an output schema exists (unseen here) could supplement, but the description alone is moderately transparent.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by output details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and an output schema exists, the description covers its purpose, output content, and usage timing adequately. It lacks details on any prerequisites, data freshness, or personalization scope, but for a pre-session brief, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. According to guidelines, baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 tool provides a pre-session coaching brief for Brett, combining recent trends across key metrics. It specifies the output includes recovery status, sleep quality, training load, and fitness trajectory, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_daily_snapshot' or 'get_health_summary' by its personalized and coaching-specific focus.

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 directs calling this tool 'at the start of every coaching session,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly with alternatives, though the sibling tools list implies other options exist.

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