Get workout comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about return contents (author and timestamp) and the distinction from notes, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, source of required ID, and alternative. No fluff 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?

For a simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential elements: what is returned, where to get the required parameter, and a clear alternative. It doesn't detail the return format further, but that's acceptable given no output schema and the simple nature of the data.

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 50%: athlete has a description, workout_id does not. The description partially compensates by noting that the workout ID comes from tp_get_workouts, but it does not elaborate on the athlete parameter. Adds some value but doesn't fully bridge the gap.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource (comment thread on a workout), with added detail about athlete/coach comments and author/timestamp. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tp_get_workout_note.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this for workout comment threads, and directs users to tp_get_workout_note for the private workout note. Also gives a prerequisite by telling users the workout ID comes from tp_get_workouts.

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