get_training_program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, establishing safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns a specific fixed program, which is useful context but does not disclose potential behaviors like whether the program is personalized or if it depends on user state. Given annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's output without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has no parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description adequately specifies what it returns. However, it could be more complete by noting the program's format or any assumptions (e.g., static vs. dynamic). The absence of an output schema shifts some burden to the description, but the current text is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

There are no parameters to describe (schema coverage 100% by default). The baseline of 4 applies as the description need not explain parameters. No additional param info is required.

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 'Return' and the resource 'the exact five build weeks and week-six deload program', making the tool's function evident. It is specific about the structure of the program, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coaching_snapshot' which might also return program data.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'verify_training_week' for individual weeks), nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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