get_workout_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states that Hevy enforces a max pageSize of 10, adding operational nuance beyond the schema's maximum value, and describes events as created/updated/deleted. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, event types, usage context, and a critical constraint without any filler. The structure front-loads the core action and efficiently adds supporting details.

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?

The description covers purpose, primary parameter, and a key constraint. However, without an output schema, the response shape (e.g., bare array vs paginated envelope) and event field details are unspecified, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 description explains the meaning of 'since' (ISO 8601 timestamp) and pageSize (max 10 enforced by Hevy), but does not mention the 'page' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this partial compensation leaves one parameter undocumented in natural language.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a precise resource ('workout sync events') and enumerates event types (created/updated/deleted) and a time filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workouts and get_workout.

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 phrase 'Useful for incremental sync' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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