Summarize planned workout volume by sport for a date range, providing count, duration, and distance to evaluate training schedule.
Summarize planned workout count, duration and distance by sport for a date range. This is planned volume, not physiological COROS Training Load.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | Yes | ||
| startDate | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral clarification that the result is planned volume, not physiological load, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behaviors, which is acceptable for a read-only summary.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and result, and the second sentence adds an important distinction without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly more detail on parameters could be added without bloat.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns (count, duration, distance by sport) and clarifies the planned vs physiological distinction. However, it does not specify output format, potential edge cases, or date format conventions, and with no output schema, the agent must rely on the description for return expectations. For a straightforward summary tool with obvious parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description mentions 'date range' but provides no details on date format, inclusivity, or any additional semantics. With schema description coverage at 0% and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description does not compensate for the lack of guidance beyond the obvious start and end dates.
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 (summarize), resource (planned workouts), and specifics (count, duration, distance by sport) for a date range. It also distinguishes from physiological Training Load, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like weekly_training_report, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose it over alternatives.
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 alternatives is provided. The only contextual hint is the note that it reports planned volume, not COROS Training Load, which clarifies what it is not but does not advise on selection among siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.