garmin_training_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (daily classifications, status counts, transitions), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any auth, rate-limit, or safety considerations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably tight. Each sentence contributes something, though the parenthetical examples and breakdown detail could be trimmed slightly.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits the optional 'days' parameter and there are no annotations to cover safety or behavior, leaving a clear gap for correct parameterized use.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'days' parameter or what it controls. The name and default are self-evident, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific resource (training status history) with the possible values and explains that it shows daily Garmin classifications, breakdowns, and transitions. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from relevant siblings such as garmin_training_load or garmin_recovery.

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 offers a use case ('spotting detraining before it deepens'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it does not state when to choose this over alternatives or include any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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