tp_get_atp

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

The description discloses the key behavior of returning weekly TSS targets, training periods, and races, and includes a hard limit of 90 days on the date range. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but provides only moderate detail.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by specific content and a constraint. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool, the description covers the essential return contents and a key limitation. It does not describe the output schema (there is none) or potential errors, but given the simplicity and the schema's completeness, it is adequately 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?

Though schema descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, the description adds the critical constraint 'Max 90 days' that applies to the date range parameters. This is not present in the schema, so the description enriches parameter understanding beyond the structured fields.

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 gets an Annual Training Plan and specifies its contents (weekly TSS targets, training periods, races). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_peaks or tp_get_weekly_summary, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. The 'Max 90 days' constraint provides some context, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description implies usage for annual planning but does not clarify scenarios where other planning tools might be more appropriate.

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