Get Training Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the date parameter context and the list of metrics returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential latency or that the training status might be composite, but given annotations, this is adequate.

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 sentence that lists the main data points efficiently, without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could be to separate the metric list, but it is appropriately concise.

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 is a simple read operation with one optional parameter, a single-sentence description suffices. The annotations cover safety and openness, and the parameter schema fully explains the input. No output schema is present, but the described output fields give a clear picture of what the agent can expect. It lacks explicit note on default to today, but the schema provides that.

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 input schema has only one parameter (date) with 100% description coverage in the schema itself. The description mentions 'for a date' but doesn't add details beyond the schema's default to today. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is added.

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 'Get' and the resource 'training status', and enumerates key data points (status, feedback phrase, VO2 max, fitness trend, loads, ACWR). It distinguishes from siblings like get_training_load and get_load_ratio by mentioning those specific metrics, but doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 retrieving overall training status for a date, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over related tools like get_training_load or get_load_ratio. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the context of sibling tools hints at differences.

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