compare_latest_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison but does not explain what happens with insufficient data, how 'similar' is determined, or any side effects or limitations. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the plain operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Compare'). It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation, though it omits detail that would make it more complete.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and one poorly documented parameter. The description only states the core purpose, leaving ambiguity around the meaning of 'similar workouts' and the effect of lookback_days. It does not explain expected output or prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to decide if this tool fits the user's request.

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 one parameter (lookback_days) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. The agent cannot infer what 'lookback_days' controls or how it relates to 'similar workouts', so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the resource as 'the latest workout' against 'median values from similar workouts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workouts or get_workout_details, which are about retrieving data, not comparing.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or the context in which a comparison is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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