get_training_load

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only notes that fields are returned 'when available'. It does not explain what happens when data is unavailable, whether this depends on prior recorded activities, or how the date argument affects results.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the key returned fields. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 tool is relatively simple and has an output schema to document return values, but the missing date-parameter semantics and lack of sibling differentiation leave an agent uncertain about correct invocation and selection.

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, but it never mentions the 'date' parameter. The schema provides only a name and default null, leaving the date's format, allowed range, and effect on returned metrics unexplained.

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 names the resource (training status/load, VO2 max, endurance, hill fields) and the verb (Get). It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics tools by listing specific fields, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_training_context or get_training_readiness.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_training_context, get_recovery, or get_daily_summary. The phrase 'when available' hints at conditional data availability but does not provide any usage direction or exclusions.

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