get_training_load

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the data categories, but does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only, whether any authentication is required, or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the time period or units, though the output schema may cover those details. This falls short of the transparency expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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, compact phrase that lists exactly the essential data elements. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter getter and is easily scanned.

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 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the core purpose and the kind of data returned. It does not elaborate on edge cases or typical use contexts, but for a basic read-only getter, this is sufficient. A slightly more explicit statement about data scope would push it to 5.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific explanation, but none is needed since there are no parameters to clarify. The short description does not detract from schema adequacy.

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 identifies the resource as Garmin training load and lists specific components (status, acute/chronic load, load focus), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recovery or get_sleep. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'returns' or 'gets'), relying on the tool name to imply the action, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or cases where another sibling tool (e.g., get_recent_load) would be more appropriate. The only context is the data content, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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