Validate structure

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating the output: 'Returns block count, duration, estimated IF/TSS,' which clarifies expected results. It does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., error on invalid structure), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences, no redundant words. Every clause adds information: what it validates, that it avoids creation, and what it returns.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, output, and the relationship to tp_create_workout. The main gap is not describing what happens when validation fails (e.g., error codes or return structure for invalid input), which could be important for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter's format via the reference to 'same format as the structure field in tp_create_workout,' which is useful for users familiar with that tool. It does not fully define the structure grammar but compensates with the cross-reference.

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 states the tool's function: 'Validate workout interval structure without creating a workout.' It uses a specific verb ('validate'), a resource ('workout interval structure'), and explicitly contrasts with creating a workout, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_create_workout.

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 phrase 'without creating a workout' implies this tool is for pre-validation before creation, providing clear context. It also references tp_create_workout's structure format, linking it to the creation workflow. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this before creating' or mention alternative validation tools.

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