get_training_load

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

There are no annotations, so the description must bear the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists returned metric categories and gives a 'Get' verb; it does not explain date handling, what happens when date is omitted, units, or any other behavioral details.

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 a single sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, the structure is a long slash-separated list of jargon ('acute/chronic', 'ratio/status', 'focus/targets') that is cryptic and harder to parse than necessary.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks enough context for correct invocation. It does not explain the optional date's role or differentiate this tool from the sibling readiness, recovery, and activity tools, leaving important selection and call-time behavior unclear.

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 schema has one optional date parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention date at all. The parameter name 'date' and its default of null provide a minimal hint, but the description adds no meaning about format, default behavior, or how date filters the load metrics.

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 the verb 'Get' and names a resource ('training load') followed by a list of metric categories, so the general purpose is recognizable. However, it is an indiscriminate enumeration ('acute/chronic load, ratio/status, focus/targets, VO2 max, scores, acclimation') that does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_training_readiness or get_recovery.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use get_training_load versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. An agent is left to guess which of the many overlapping health-metric tools is appropriate.

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