list_planned_activities_raw

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world semantics. The description adds valuable context about the raw response containing specific identifiers/version fields (planId, planProgramId, idInPlan, version), which is not visible in annotations. No contradiction.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and justification. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters. The description is sufficiently complete for a read-only list operation with 2 parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain the start_day or end_day parameters at all. The parameter names are suggestive of a date range, but the description provides no semantic meaning beyond the schema's pattern constraints.

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 action ('List planned activities') and the distinguishing nuance ('without stripping API fields'), which differentiates it from the sibling tool list_planned_activities. It also gives a specific use case, making the purpose 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 explicitly says 'Use this before updating an existing scheduled workout' and explains why: the raw fields contain identifiers and version info required by update_scheduled_workout. This gives strong when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with other list tools.

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