garmin_scheduled_workouts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals no behavioral details: no mention of read-only behavior, no defaults beyond the schema's parameter defaults, no note about response shape, calendar scope, or how scheduled workouts differ from regular workouts. The schema already documents the date defaults, so the description adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely short—one sentence—so it is concise, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the resource but spends no words on action or context, so the brevity is not fully earned.

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 tool with no annotations and many closely related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'scheduled' means, whether it returns a list or a summary, how it differs from garmin_workouts or garmin_today, or what an agent should expect in the output. The output schema exists, but the tool's purpose and selection criteria remain ambiguous.

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 schema fully explains the two parameters and their defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about date filters or their interaction, but with full schema coverage 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 states a result ('Workouts scheduled on the Garmin calendar') but lacks a verb specifying what the tool does with them—retrieve, list, fetch. The phrasing identifies the resource but not an explicit action, so it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource description.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as garmin_workouts, garmin_today, or garmin_activities_by_date. The description does not state any context, exclusions, or alternatives, so the agent must guess which tool fits a request.

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