get_coaching_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting 'privacy-filtered' – indicating that some data may be redacted based on user permissions – and by listing the specific data categories included. This provides additional behavioral nuance that the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information: action (Read), modifiers (privacy-filtered), object (coaching snapshot), and a comma-separated list of included data points. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, full annotation coverage) the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns via the field list and implies it's a single snapshot object. A slight gap is the lack of explicit mention of the date scope (though the parameter implies it) and absence of any return structure hints (e.g., 'returns a JSON object'), but these are minor omissions for such a straightforward read operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'date' parameter has a clear description with format and default). The tool description does not repeat or extend this information, but it also does not need to. At baseline 3 for high coverage, the description adequately complements the schema without adding extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('privacy-filtered coaching snapshot') and enumerates the key data fields (recovery, sleep, HRV, Body Battery, etc.), making the tool's output immediately clear. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_training_program' or 'verify_training_week' which focus on training weeks or program details rather than a broad health snapshot.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'Use this to get an overview of the athlete's readiness'; 'Not for specific training program details'). It relies solely on the tool name and the listed fields to imply context, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear disambiguating instructions.

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