get_training_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait beyond a plain fetch — 'transparent comparisons' signals that the tool performs analysis and surfaces the underlying values — and 'anchored to date' clarifies filtering behavior. However, it omits operational details such as what happens when the date parameter is null and how 'preceding training' is bounded (how far back, how many sessions).

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 12-word sentence with the primary content ('recovery and preceding training') front-loaded before the qualifiers. Every word earns its place, there is no filler, and it is not a tautological restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema covers return shape and the tool is a simple one-parameter read operation, which lowers the bar. Yet with no annotations, the null-date behavior, the comparison baseline, and routing among a crowded sibling set remain unstated, so an agent would still need to make assumptions before invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does tie the only parameter 'date' to the core behavior via 'anchored to date.' It fails to state expected date format, timezone handling, or the semantics of null even though the schema defaults date to null, so an agent must infer what an omitted date yields.

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 and resource: get 'recovery and preceding training anchored to date,' which is a composite scope that differentiates it from single-domain siblings like get_recovery or get_activities. However, 'with transparent comparisons' is vague about what is being compared against what, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function.

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 composite scope ('recovery AND preceding training') implies a comparison-oriented use case, which offers situational context. But the description never states when not to use this tool or names alternatives such as get_recovery for recovery-only needs, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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