list_workout_templates

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses inclusion/exclusion behavior: only templates created by the save_* tools appear, not one-off scheduled workouts. It also transparently specifies the returned structure with keys like workouts and count, so the agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds value: provenance, exclusions, and return format. It is detailed but not bloated, with no redundant phrasing.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations declaring read-only/open-world behavior, the description provides all the context needed to invoke the tool correctly. It names related creation/scheduling tools, clarifies exclusions, and documents the response shape.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead focuses on return-value semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List reusable workout templates saved in the Coros library.' It also distinguishes the tool from related siblings by clarifying that templates come from save_workout_template / save_strength_workout_template and that one-off scheduled workouts are not included.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool—listing reusable templates—and gives when-not guidance by saying one-off workouts from schedule_workout / schedule_strength_workout do NOT appear. It also points to related tools like schedule_workout_template, giving the agent clear routing context.

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