get_workouts

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. While the nature of retrieving recent workouts suggests no side effects, the lack of explicit confirmation reduces transparency.

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 concise with two sentences plus an args section, all front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, known return fields), the description covers the essential aspects. However, it does not specify ordering (e.g., most recent first) or any pagination details. An output schema exists, so return type details are not required, but missing ordering constraints could cause ambiguity.

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 input schema has only the 'limit' parameter with a default value of 5. The description adds meaning by explaining it as 'Number of workouts to return (default: 5, no limit)' and clarifies that omitting the parameter returns 5 workouts. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this additional context is valuable.

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 'Get recent workouts with strain and heart rate data.' and lists the specific data fields returned (sport type, strain, duration, calories, heart rate zones). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recovery_trend, get_sleep_trend, and get_today_summary, which focus on different health metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it is for retrieving workout data, but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it could specify that for daily summaries or recovery data, one should use the respective sibling tools.

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