verify_training_week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description's 'Read Garmin' aligns with these, adding piece of behavioral context (the data source) but not disclosing anything beyond annotations like rate limits or data freshness. Does not contradict 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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Read Garmin') and lists specific items to compare. No redundancy or fluff. Could be slightly improved by clarifying the comparison target, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite rich annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description fails to explain the required parameter (canonicalProposal) and does not describe the return format. Given no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool produces. The 'compare' aspect lacks context on reference data or expected input format.

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 0%: the description never mentions the parameter 'canonicalProposal' or explains its meaning or usage. With only one required parameter, this is a critical gap. The agent cannot infer what value to provide. No compensation from examples or other fields.

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 specific verb 'Read' and resource 'Garmin' and lists fields to compare (scheduled dates, steps, targets, etc.). It hints at a verification function distinct from sibling tools like preview_training_week or apply_training_week. However, 'compare' lacks clarity on what is being compared against what, and the data source 'Garmin' is vague (device? service?).

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like preview_training_week or apply_training_week. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and bare description.

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