List Concept2 Workout Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the output includes a paginated list with specific fields, pagination metadata (total, count, per_page, etc.), and a response_format option. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into Returns, Args, and Examples sections. Despite its length, every part serves a purpose—parameter documentation, return fields, pagination metadata, and usage examples—without fluff.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, all parameters (including defaults and enum options), the shape of returned results, pagination metadata, and response formats. Examples further illustrate common 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?

All 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section repeats schema info but adds value with concrete examples (e.g., type='rower', from='2024-01-01') that clarify parameter combinations and default behavior.

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 opens with 'List workout results (rows/ergs) for a Concept2 Logbook user with pagination and filtering,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like concept2_get_result (single result) and concept2_list_challenges (different resource).

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?

Clear context is provided: this is for paginated/filtered listing of workout results. Examples show how to filter by type and date range. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like concept2_get_result for a single result.

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