list_workout_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the exclusion of one-off workouts, the source of templates, and the detailed return structure with nested exercise fields. This is meaningful context that helps the agent predict output and scope.

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 concise and well-structured: a single introductory sentence, one clarifying sentence about scope, and a cleanly formatted 'Returns' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers the purpose, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and complete return format (including nested exercise details). The output schema is effectively documented in the Returns section, making the description comprehensive for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully described (empty properties). With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on behavior rather than arguments.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'reusable workout templates saved in the Coros library.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating that one-off workouts scheduled via schedule_workout/schedule_strength_workout do NOT appear, and clarifies the source of templates (save_workout_template/save_strength_workout_template).

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 states when the tool should be used (to list templates created by save_workout_template/save_strength_workout_template) and when it should not (for one-off workouts, which are handled by different scheduling tools). It names sibling tools and provides clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, exceeding the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' requirement.

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