get_training_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add some behavioral context beyond the name: it reads 'local' data and reports anchors plus history coverage range, hinting at data-availability feedback. But it says nothing about behavior with insufficient history, whether results are cached/stale, or auth/data-source requirements.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the metric names are front-loaded. Slight deduction because the trailing 'anchors and history coverage' clause is unclear to a reader who does not already know the domain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at least say what the time window means and whether a sync is required; it leaves those gaps for a read-only analytical tool.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'days' (default 42, range 7–365) or 'end_date', so the agent gets no guidance on the lookback window or the anchor date from the description; 'history coverage range' gestures at the concept but does not explain either parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('读取') and specific resources ('Edwards TRIMP 与 PMC 趋势'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the second clause ('显示锚点和历史覆盖范围') is vague, and the tool's relation to siblings like get_overview and get_recovery_status, which likely also surface load/trend data, is not clarified.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus get_overview or get_recovery_status, no prerequisites (e.g., does data need to be synced first via sync_now?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the metric names.

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