get_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by stating that each workout includes local start and end times, and that the tool returns activity fields like HR zones. It implies a read operation with no destructive effects. While it could mention output format or pagination, it provides sufficient behavioral context for a simple query.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality: resource, time scope, and returned fields. It could mention the output format (e.g., array of objects) or sorting, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'days' defines the lookback period and notes the default value of 14, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default declaration. Could specify constraints (e.g., max value), but the current text is adequate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('workout activities'), and specifies the fields included (sport, strain, avg/max HR, zones). It also defines the default time scope ('last N days'), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools which target different health domains.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (retrieve detailed workout history for a recent period), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives like daily_summary. However, the distinct resource type makes usage obvious.

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