get_recent_load

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states that data is aggregated, without disclosing whether this is a safe read operation, what data sources are involved, or any potential side effects or limitations. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic aggregation.

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 is front-loaded with the key concept ('Training volume aggregated by sport') and avoids any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about how this relates to sibling tools (e.g., get_training_load) and what 'training volume' specifically means (units, sport types). The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description alone is minimally complete.

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 schema has one parameter 'days' with a default of 28 but no description field (0% coverage). The description's 'last N days' implies that 'days' represents the time window, adding meaning that the schema lacks. However, it does not explain the default value, allowed range, or format, leaving some ambiguity.

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's function: 'Training volume aggregated by sport over the last N days.' It specifies the resource (training volume), the aggregation dimension (by sport), and the time window (last N days). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_training_load, which likely focuses on overall load without sport breakdown.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools like get_training_load or get_recent_activities. The usage context is only implied by the description, offering no help for an agent deciding between similar tools.

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