garmin_upcoming_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real boundary semantics ('including today', forward-only window) and the identity fields returned, but says nothing about behavior when the calendar is empty or about date/timezone handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope and immediately followed by the returned identifiers. The mention of schedule_id and workout_id partly duplicates the output schema, but the parenthetical pointing at garmin_workout_unschedule 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?

With an output schema present and readOnly/openWorld annotations supplied, the description need not explain return shape, and it covers scope, inclusivity of today, and follow-up chaining. Only minor gaps remain, such as empty-calendar behavior.

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%, but the single 'days' parameter is fully disambiguated by the phrase 'next N days, including today', which resolves whether the window is forward-looking and whether today counts. Default (14) and bounds (1-60) are left to the schema's default/maximum fields, so the description carries the semantic load that matters.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: workouts on the user's Garmin calendar within a forward-looking day window, including today. This implicitly separates it from garmin_workouts_list (the workout library), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to garmin_workouts_list or garmin_workout_get. It does, however, route the agent forward by noting schedule_id is the input for garmin_workout_unschedule, which is useful chaining context.

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