get_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the merge of completed custom-template sessions from the history feed (tagged source:"history"), the meaning of isReservation:true, that otherActivities are not gym sessions but count toward weekly load, and the data-completeness caveat that Speediance only holds what the phone synced. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence conveys distinct, load-bearing information about merge behavior, reservations, and otherActivities. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is 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 still describes the return shape (each day carries trainingPlanList, per-day otherActivities, source tags) and the caveats that matter for interpretation. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it supplies the format for the single parameter (`month` = 'YYYY-MM'). That is the key semantic an agent needs for the one required arg, though it adds nothing about timezone or range handling.

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 opening clause states a specific resource and scope ('what's scheduled and trained in a month') and the description immediately differentiates the tool from get_session_detail by explaining what the calendar feed does and does not include. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like list_my_workouts or get_training_stats without opening a schema.

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 gives clear context for what the calendar covers and routes the agent onward ('pass their trainingId to get_session_detail'), which is an explicit alternative. It does not, however, frame when to prefer this tool over list_my_workouts or get_training_stats, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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