list_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only retrieval and the limit parameter is documented, but there is no explicit mention of authentication, ordering, pagination, or the absence of side effects. No contradiction exists.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a single parameter explanation. Every line earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation details. It lacks explicit sibling routing, but that is already captured under usage guidelines; the remaining information is sufficient.

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 only provides type and default for limit. The description adds meaningful semantics: 'Maximum workouts to return (1-100). Defaults to 20.' This fully documents the only parameter and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List structured workouts saved in the Garmin account.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_workout and schedule_workout, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_activities, create_workout, or schedule_workout. The intended use is only implied by the first line, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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