get_running_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only aggregation, says nothing about the lookback window semantics, pagination, or result shape, and gives no permission or rate-limit context. The metric list hints at aggregation behavior but does not constitute behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the metric enumeration is the most useful content and appears first. It is terse to the point of being clipped, but nothing is wasted.

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 low complexity, the parameter schema is complete, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations the description still owes the agent a read-only signal and some distinction from the overlapping monthly-stats sibling, which it does not supply.

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 single `days` parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 90, range 1-365, meaning stated), giving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Running summary' largely restates the tool name, but the trailing metric list (sessions, distance, pace, HR, longest run, fastest run, monthly split) does specify what the summary contains. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_monthly_running_stats, whose name overlaps with the 'monthly split' element, so the agent cannot resolve the overlap from the description alone.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions an alternative tool. With near-duplicate siblings such as get_monthly_running_stats and get_recent_activities, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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