Workouts (Withings)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output includes workout type, duration, calories, and HR, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as date range handling, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 a short, single phrase with no fluff, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the core resource and key return fields. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, omitting crucial input context.

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 tool with only two date parameters and no output schema, the description should at least mention the date range requirement. It lists output fields but entirely ignores input semantics, and it lacks usage differentiation from the many sibling 'get' tools. An agent would not know how to properly invoke this tool from the description alone.

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 for the undocumented startDate and endDate parameters. It does not mention them at all, nor does it clarify that the tool queries workouts within a date range. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (workouts) and lists key attributes (type, duration, calories, HR), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like withings_get_activity or withings_get_sleep. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'get' to convey the action.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and description: it is for logged workout data. No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling tool names.

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