List Samsung Health Workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds only the source ('local CSV/ZIP export') and the 'bounded' scope, which is minimal. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action 'List' and the resource 'workout records'. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 has 5 parameters (including enums for privacy_mode and response_format), no output schema, and no explanation of 'bounded' behavior or effects of parameters like limit or privacy_mode, the description is far too sparse to enable confident invocation by an AI agent.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage (descriptions for 'start' and 'end' only), the description provides zero additional parameter meaning. It does not mention any of the five parameters, their roles, or how they affect results, leaving agents with incomplete understanding for effective usage.

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 specific verb 'list', the resource 'workout records', and the source 'local Samsung Health CSV/ZIP export data', which distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like 'list_records' (generic records) and 'daily_summary' (summary) and 'data_inventory' (inventory).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'samsung_health_list_records' or 'samsung_health_daily_summary'. It only mentions 'bounded workout records' vaguely but fails to explain that it is for bounded date ranges or that siblings exist for other record types or unbounded access.

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