get_scheduled_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility of conveying behavior. It states the tool 'Returns workouts' and is phrased as a read-only operation, which clearly implies no side effects. It does not explicitly mention that data is unchanged, but the 'Get' verb and return wording are sufficient for a user to infer read-only behavior.

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 composed of two brief, focused sentences: a one-line summary and a slightly more detailed explanation. There is no redundant information, jargon, or filler. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and output without unnecessary length.

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?

The description confirms the output is a summary list including scheduled dates and completion status, giving users a preview of the return structure. Since an output schema exists but is not shown here, the description cannot fully describe the response format. However, it provides enough context for basic usage and expectations.

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 description specifies that start_date and end_date are in YYYY-MM-DD format and that the query is 'between two dates'. This gives clear semantics for the two required parameters, though it does not state whether the range is inclusive or exclusive. The schema only lists string types, so the description adds important format details.

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 retrieves scheduled workouts for a date range and returns a summary list with dates and completion status. It uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource ('scheduled workouts'), making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like schedule_workout or get_workouts, but the meaning is still unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus other workout-related tools (e.g., get_workouts for saved templates, schedule_workout for creating schedules). It implies usage for viewing the calendar of scheduled workouts, but the absence of alternative references leaves some ambiguity.

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