Oura Workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the requirement for 'workout scope', which is a behavioral constraint not captured by annotations. Beyond that, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness) are disclosed. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 10 words. It front-loads the core purpose (list workout summaries) and includes a critical prerequisite. However, it is possibly too brief; some additional context (e.g., pagination, date filtering) could be beneficial without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, many siblings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the basic purpose but omits context like typical use cases, relationship to other tools (e.g., oura_list_sessions for detailed workout data), or how the 'summary' differs from other data. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could be more helpful.

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 88%, so the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for most parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description meets that without adding extra value.

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 'List Oura workout summaries', specifying the action (list) and resource (workout summaries). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like oura_list_daily_activity and oura_list_daily_sleep by explicitly naming 'workouts'. The verb 'list' is appropriate and 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 mentions 'Requires workout scope', providing a prerequisite for using the tool. However, it does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oura_list_sessions or oura_list_daily_activity) nor when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the name but not explicitly elaborated.

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