Retrieve the next scheduled workout from Garmin Connect by checking this month and next, including year rollover; returns an empty object if none exists.
computed from two getScheduledWorkouts calls (this month + next, handling Dec->Jan rollover); returns {} if nothing matches, never throws
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already provided, the description adds real behavioral context: it never throws, returns an empty object instead of failing when nothing matches, and handles Dec-to-Jan rollover. It still does not describe the successful return shape, but the error/fallback behavior is unusually well disclosed.
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 very short and contains no filler. It is slightly front-loaded with implementation detail rather than the tool's direct purpose, but every clause adds relevant behavior.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned when a match exists. It only describes the empty-object fallback and never states the successful return value, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that must know what to expect.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are none to clarify.
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 never explicitly says it returns the next scheduled workout; it only explains that the result is computed from two getScheduledWorkouts calls and that an empty object is returned when nothing matches. The tool name carries most of the purpose, but the description itself is indirect and implementation-focused.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_scheduled_workouts, get_scheduled_workout_by_id, or get_scheduled_workout_summaries. The mention of computation from two calls implies a use case but does not state when the agent should prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.