Get strength workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that strength workouts live on a separate API and are absent from tp_get_workouts, plus it lists the exact return fields (date, title, duration, compliance, set totals, exercise preview). This is stronger than the baseline but stops short of detailing pagination, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, clarifying the relationship to sibling tools, and enumerating the return fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains zero filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides the only information about return values, listing key fields. It also clarifies the separate API and points to the detailed retrieval tool, covering the essential context for a listing operation. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination, or any potential limitations when using the optional athlete parameter, leaving a minor gap for a tool with three parameters and no structured output.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (athlete, start_date, end_date). The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters—it merely references the date range in general terms. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('structured strength/gym workouts') and scope ('in a date range'). It strongly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that strength workouts do NOT appear in tp_get_workouts and that this tool is used to find them and their IDs, which is more than a generic restatement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to find strength workouts and their IDs, and provides a clear alternative (tp_get_workouts) while also directing users to tp_get_strength_workout for full detail. This gives explicit usage context and exclusions, far exceeding a vague 'use for listing workouts.'

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