Get Planned Workouts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: cancelled occurrences are pre-filtered, completed occurrences are intentionally not excluded, and roots expose parsed series fields. This helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 a bit long but each sentence earns its place: core purpose, date constraints, cancellation/completion semantics, and structured fields. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the extra detail is necessary for correct use.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return concept (occurrences and roots) and the key behavioral nuances. It does not enumerate exact occurrence fields, but the depth provided is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly states `from` and `to` are mandatory dates in YYYY-MM-DD format with a maximum span of 366 days, adding meaning beyond the raw schema pattern and required list.

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 returns calendar occurrences and their planned-workout roots for a date window. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate; still, the resource ('planned workouts') is distinct from `get_history` or `get_adherence`.

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 gives concrete invocation constraints (mandatory `from`/`to`, max 366 days, cancelled excluded) and clarifies that completed occurrences are included. However, it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_history` or `get_training_state`, leaving the choice to inference.

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