preview_training_week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these by stating it is a read operation ('Read ... without writing') and adds valuable context: the tool builds a 'canonical week' from 'current recovery data'. No contradictions with annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action (Read) and outcome (build complete canonical week). Every word adds value.

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 complexity (5 params, 2 required, enums, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what parameters like illness or recoveryAction do, nor what the return format is. Completeness is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps for an agent needing to set options.

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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. The description does not detail the parameters (illness, painOrInjury, recoveryAction) despite them being essential for the preview. It only implies that recovery data is used. A baseline of 3 is fair given the low coverage but no explicit parameter guidance in the description.

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 tool's purpose: read recovery data and build a complete canonical week without writing to Garmin. The verb 'preview' combined with the description distinguishes it from siblings like 'apply_training_week' and 'verify_training_week', which involve writing or verification. The phrase 'without writing' explicitly contrasts with write operations.

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 mentions 'read current recovery data' which implies use for preview before applying, and 'without writing Garmin' clearly contrasts with apply_training_week. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools by name. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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