get_adaptive_training_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate safety and behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention error behavior, permissions, or how the returned details are formatted. This is a minimal disclosure, comparable to the 'Update' example that also scored 2.

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 two compact parts: a single-sentence summary and an Args line. There is no filler; every clause adds information, and the key instruction is front-loaded. It is well structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe what 'details' are returned to let an agent know what to expect. It does not. It also omits any differentiation from the sibling `get_training_plan`, leaving the contextual space incomplete for a tool with that many siblings.

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 schema provides no description for `plan_id` (0% coverage), so the Args block is essential. It adds semantic meaning by explaining that the ID is 'as returned by list_training_plans', which tells the agent exactly where to obtain a valid value. This fully compensates for the schema gap for the single parameter.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get details for a specific adaptive training plan.' This makes the core operation obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling `get_training_plan`; both appear to retrieve training plan details, so the differentiation relies entirely on the name.

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 line 'plan_id: The adaptive training plan ID, as returned by list_training_plans' implies a workflow: first list plans, then get details for one. This gives a contextual hint about when the tool is used. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over `get_training_plan` or any exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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