get_training_zones

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It signals a non-mutating retrieval operation ('Get') and clarifies that the data source is the user's configured thresholds. It does not mention output shape or edge cases, but the output schema covers return structure, making this a minimally sufficient disclosure.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the specific resource ('Garmin HR-zone and cycling power-zone floor thresholds') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what is returned and where the data comes from. The output schema covers return details, and sibling names help disambiguate intent. The only notable gap is usage guidance, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states the verb 'Get' and a specific resource: 'configured Garmin HR-zone and cycling power-zone floor thresholds.' Unlike sibling tools, which return measured metrics like sleep or readiness, this targets stored configuration thresholds, making it readily distinguishable.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_training_context or get_training_load. The description neither states use cases nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer intent from the tool name alone.

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