list_training_plans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description does not specify return format, ordering, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a zero-parameter read-only list, this is minimally acceptable, though still thin.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it largely restates the tool name, so it adds minimal new information beyond the name itself.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not say what the returned list contains, whether it returns summaries or full plans, or if any special behavior applies. A bit more output detail would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 'List training plans' states a clear verb and resource, so an agent can tell this tool retrieves a collection of training plans. It distinguishes well from get_training_plan and get_adaptive_training_plan, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_activities or list_workouts beyond the resource 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_plan, get_adaptive_training_plan, or list_workouts. The description only gives the basic action and leaves usage context entirely to inference.

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