get_training_context

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

The description's 'Read' aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, performance) are disclosed beyond the annotation. The inclusive ISO date range is noted, but this is more about parameters than behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key resources. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required string params, read-only, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention that it returns combined data, but the existing output schema mitigates this gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying 'inclusive ISO date range', providing format context that the schema (only types and titles) lacks. It clarifies that the parameters are ISO dates and that the range is inclusive, adding 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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resources 'activities, wellness and calendar events', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_athlete_profile or get_personal_context. The scope 'inclusive ISO date range' adds specificity.

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 use for retrieving a holistic training context over a date range, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_personal_context or set_personal_fact. No exclusions or comparative guidance are given.

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