list_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a list of templates, implies read-only behavior, and mentions the returned fields. It doesn't explicitly state it doesn't modify data, but for a listing operation this is reasonably transparent. It does not mention errors or side effects, but none are expected.

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 two sentences: the first defines the action and output fields, the second clarifies the nature (templates) and provides a practical hint. It is concise, well-structured, and free of superfluous content.

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 gives sufficient context for a simple listing tool: it specifies the return fields, clarifies that these are templates, and indicates the primary use case (deletion). While it does not describe pagination or error handling, these are not critical for a basic list operation and the given information is enough for most use cases.

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 only parameter `limit` is fully described in the schema (integer, default 50). The description adds no additional meaning, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool lists workouts from the Garmin Connect library, specifies the fields (id, name, sport), and distinguishes these as templates rather than logged activities. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling activity-related tools.

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?

It explicitly notes the tool is for templates (not logged activities) and suggests using the returned ids with `delete_workout`, giving a concrete use case. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X', the contrast with logged activities provides clear guidance for when to select this tool.

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