list_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It contributes useful behavioral context: reverse-chronological order and a hard API limit of pageSize 10. However, it omits details like return format, pagination semantics beyond pageSize, or any explicit read-only indication, leaving some gaps.

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 only two short sentences with no filler. The first states the core purpose, and the second surfaces a concrete API constraint. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately front-loaded and economical.

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 is minimally sufficient for a basic list tool: it names the resource, order, and a pagination constraint. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks information about the return structure, what fields a workout contains, or whether this lists all workouts for the user. Additional context would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the pageSize limit, which is already encoded in the schema's maximum constraint, and says nothing about the page parameter. Thus it adds minimal semantic value beyond the structured 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 clearly identifies the operation as listing workouts and adds the reverse-chronological ordering detail, making the verb+resource pairing specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_workout or list_routines, but the plural 'workouts' and the listing intent are clear.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or how it relates to get_workout, get_workout_count, or list_routines, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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