Get the training program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that the tool returns null when no active program exists. It also warns against inventing programs, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the returned day templates or targets, though an output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary purpose first, then the null behavior, then the fallback action, and finally the edit path. Every sentence earns its place 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, what happens when there's no active program, and how to proceed in that case. The guidance to avoid inventing programs is critical for an AI agent and is clearly stated.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned data represents (day templates, planned blocks/supersets, per-exercise targets), which is more useful than the empty schema alone.

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 retrieves the active training program including day templates and per-exercise targets, and explicitly notes it returns null when no active program exists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session or get_sessions, which focus on logged sessions rather than the program structure.

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 provides explicit guidance: if no active program exists, the agent should call get_coaching_context(task='new_program') and follow it, and must never invent a program from generic knowledge. It also mentions editing via import_document, giving clear direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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