Get Training Plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond 'get all available', such as whether results are exhaustive, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The openWorldHint might imply limited scope, but it's not clarified.

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, directly stating the operation. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero unnecessary words.

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 description lacks essential context: no output format, no mention of pagination or limits, no differentiation from get_training_plan_by_id, and no indication of whether it requires any preconditions. With no output schema and openWorldHint annotation, the agent gets minimal guidance on what to expect.

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 no parametersable, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-related meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—nothing to compensate for.

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 it retrieves all available training plans. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_training_plan_by_id', which could cause ambiguity about whether this returns a list or single item. The plural

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_training_plan_by_id or get_training_status. It doesn't mention any filtering, pagination, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context on selection.

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