List Hevy Workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint not present in the schema (page_size capped at 10), which is valuable, but it says nothing about ordering, what happens past the final page, or whether results are scoped to the authenticated user.

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?

A single compact sentence with the limit constraint front-loaded after the purpose. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover safety. For a simple two-parameter list tool the description is minimally adequate, but it omits result ordering and how the paging relates to the total count exposed by sibling tools.

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 carry parameter meaning. It documents the upper bound on page_size but leaves `page` unexplained beyond the default of 1, and does not state whether paging is 1-based or how out-of-range pages behave.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a page of recorded Hevy workouts') and signals pagination, which distinguishes it from the singular get_hevy_workout and the write-side create_hevy_workout. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this differs from get_hevy_workout_count (totals), get_hevy_workout (single record), or get_workout_details, all of which appear in the sibling list.

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