tp_get_fitness

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only indicates a read operation with no disclosure of authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid dates or missing data. Lacks detail on response format or aggregation logic.

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, to the point. Could be improved by explaining acronyms or front-loading key details, but no redundant information.

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?

Adequately describes purpose and parameters, but lacks behavioral information and output format details. Given no output schema, describing return structure would enhance 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all params documented in schema). The description adds context about what the data represents (CTL, ATL, TSB) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('TrainingPeaks fitness, fatigue, and form metrics'), and specifies the acronyms (CTL, ATL, TSB). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., workout, profile, weekly summary tools) by focusing on fitness metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no exclusion criteria, and no alternative tool mentioned. The description implies it is for fetching fitness metrics but does not explain when it should be preferred over other tools like tp_get_weekly_summary.

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