get_workout_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a total count for the authenticated account, but it does not elaborate on the exact return format (e.g., plain integer vs. JSON object) or any potential error conditions. For such a simple endpoint, the minimal transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is counted and for whom. It doesn't specify the return data type, which could be a minor gap, but given the simplicity of 'total count,' the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and use it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the schema already fully covers the empty parameter set. There is nothing more to explain, so a 4 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's purpose: 'Get the total number of workouts logged for the authenticated account.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('total number of workouts'), and this count-based function is distinct from sibling tools like list_workouts and get_workout_events, making its role unambiguous.

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 by explaining what it returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workouts. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 4 for clear exclusions or alternatives.

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