assess_fitness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states 'Read-only' and explains that optional inputs produce additional comparative outputs, but it omits key operational context such as authentication requirements for Strava, failure modes if data is unavailable, and how the assessment is computed.

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 compact and front-loads the read-only nature and core purpose. The second paragraph conditionally explains the richer output when goal and race inputs are supplied. Minor formatting awkwardness aside, every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a complex analytical tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage. The description only partially compensates: it explains the high-level inputs/outputs for goal_time and race_date but does not account for default behavior when they are omitted, the roles of weeks_of_history and current_weekly_miles, or the exact shape of the assessment.

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% for four parameters. The description only adds meaning for two of them, including useful format examples for goal_time ('3:15:00') and race_date ('2027-04-19'). It says nothing about weeks_of_history or current_weekly_miles, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific verb ('summarise recent training') and a concrete analytical outcome ('size the gap to a marathon goal'). It clearly differentiates the tool's assessment purpose from sibling tools like list_activities or create_marathon_plan, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: run this to assess current fitness and evaluate a marathon goal, and optionally supply goal_time/race_date for a more detailed comparison. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_activities or create_marathon_plan, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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