analyze_training_day

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it covers all completed activities, that classification follows 'transparent rules', and that the planned calendar is returned as part of the result. This goes beyond what the annotations alone reveal.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and every sentence serves a purpose: one for the analysis coverage, one for classification behavior and the planned-calendar output. There is no redundant filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the input, the scope, the activity types, and the return contents. The phrase 'transparent rules' is vague and there is no output schema, so an agent still lacks detail on the exact classification output 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?

The single parameter 'date' has full schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the formatting details. The description adds little beyond restating that the analysis is scoped to one date, which is already implied by the parameter name and 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, 'analyze', and a concrete resource: every completed COROS activity on one date, explicitly including several activity types. It further clarifies that it classifies the recorded training day and returns the planned calendar, which helps differentiate it from single-activity or planning-only sibling tools.

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 use case is implied by the scope: analyze all completed activities for a single date and also get the planned calendar. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer that this is the daily aggregate analysis option.

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