get_training_plan

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the read-oriented verb 'Get' and provides no information about response contents, permissions, possible errors, or side effects. An agent must infer most behavioral traits from the tool name rather than the description.

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 tightly written: one sentence states the tool's purpose, and one sentence documents the parameter. There is no filler, repetition of the schema, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the invocation path is adequately covered: the description identifies the parameter and its source. However, with no output schema and no guidance on how get_training_plan relates to get_adaptive_training_plan, the agent is left to infer response shape and when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that plan_id is a training plan ID 'as returned by list_training_plans,' which is useful provenance for obtaining a valid value. This is sufficient for a single opaque ID 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get details for a specific training plan.' This distinguishes it from list_training_plans, which lists plans, and from other getters on different resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named get_adaptive_training_plan.

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 by saying plan_id is 'as returned by list_training_plans,' which tells the agent that listing plans first is the expected way to get an ID. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like get_adaptive_training_plan.

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