Get Training Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It conveys a read-only aggregation behavior and a time window, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose the role of now_ts as the reference timestamp or non-imperial vs imperial units, leaving some behavioral expectations implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence lists the key metrics (volume, distance, time, calories) and the time dimension with zero unnecessary words. The description spends its space efficiently.

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 that an output schema exists, return fields need not be spelled out, and the tool is relatively simple. Still, the missing meaning of now_ts and imperial, plus no sibling differentiation, means an agent may struggle to use all parameters correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for unrecorded parameters. It only clarifies 'days' via 'past N days' but leaves 'now_ts' and 'imperial' completely unexplained, despite their presence in the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: aggregated training volume, distance, time, and calories across sports. It is sufficiently distinct from siblings like get_recent_workouts and get_workout_details because it emphasizes aggregation, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 is given on when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as get_recent_activities_summary or get_training_load_and_recovery. The only context is 'for the past N days,' which implies a use case but never states exclusions or comparisons to alternatives.

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