get_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that the result is a count plus a list of summaries with essential metadata only, and that segments are excluded. However, it does not mention potential scale, pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, leaving some ambiguity about what 'all workouts' means in practice.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a second sentence to clarify output scope. The final sentence adds a useful pointer to the alternative without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and how it differs from the detailed variant. It could mention whether results are ordered or bounded, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap minor.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is already complete with an empty properties object, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('workouts'), and adds that it returns a summary list rather than full details. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_workout_by_id, which is the most likely point of confusion among siblings.

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?

The description states that this tool is for summary-level workout information and directs the agent to get_workout_by_id when detailed information including segments is needed. This provides a clear routing decision, though it does not discuss alternatives like scheduled workouts or downloads.

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