get_athlete_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it explains that legacyUnreviewed facts may still bind until curated, that injury facts there should be treated as hard constraints, that conflicts must be surfaced rather than resolved silently, and that otherActivities must count toward load. It says nothing about freshness/caching, read-only nature, or error behavior, so not fully complete.

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?

Front-loaded: the first clause states the tool's role, then the payload is enumerated, then the handling directives follow. It is dense and the parenthetical enumeration with symbols (★preferred / ⊘avoided) is heavy, but each sentence conveys actionable information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description has to explain the return shape itself, and it does so concretely across all payload groups. For a read-only snapshot tool of this complexity it is close to sufficient; the unresolved gap is the undocumented 'days' parameter and lack of any note on payload size or truncation.

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?

There is one parameter, 'days' (default 14), with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — 'recent sessions' gestures at a time window but does not tie it to the parameter or state what changing it does. The most invokable knob on the tool is left entirely undefined.

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 opens with a precise scope statement ('Everything needed before planning') and then enumerates the exact payload: profile fields, coaching memory grouped as constraints/preferences/goals/observations/conflicts, preferred/avoided exercises, owned equipment, recent sessions, and phone-imported otherActivities. An agent can tell this is the aggregate pre-planning fetch rather than a narrow getter like get_preferences or list_facts. It never states the verb explicitly, but the resource and breadth are unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context ('before planning'/'before building any workout') and prescriptive handling rules: check memory.facts.constraints.hard and respect it, raise memory.facts.conflicts with the user rather than choosing, and curate legacyUnreviewed facts promptly. It stops short of naming alternatives, so it never says when a narrower sibling (get_preferences, list_facts, get_training_stats) is the better call instead.

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