tp_get_fitness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and 'Supports historical date ranges' adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly disclose auth requirements, default behavior, or return format details beyond the metric acronyms, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a key functional capability. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous phrasing.

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 with a fully described schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the return metrics (CTL/ATL/TSB) and explicitly supports historical ranges. While it omits details like default range or parameter interactions, the schema covers those, making the description sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all four parameters (days, athlete, end_date, start_date), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema adequately covers parameter meaning.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('fitness/fatigue trend (CTL/ATL/TSB)'). The mention of CTL/ATL/TSB distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_weekly_summary or tp_get_workout_prs, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for historical fitness/fatigue trends through 'Supports historical date ranges,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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