pl_get_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context, and it does so well by disclosing the inclusive date range and the Europe/Berlin timezone. It also clarifies that both planned and completed workouts are included. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or edge cases, but the read-only nature is implied by 'get' and the simple 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element earns its place by specifying the resource, date format, inclusivity, and timezone.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description covers the required semantics: what data is returned, the date range behavior, and the applicable timezone. No critical input expectations are left unexplained, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful details beyond the parameter names: date format YYYY-MM-DD, inclusivity, and Europe/Berlin timezone. The start_date and end_date roles are clear from their names)Skip, and the description reinforces that they define a range.

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 identifies the resource (workouts), the scope (planned and completed), and the date-range constraint. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve,' but the tool name supplies 'get' and the meaning is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on workouts rather than status, PMC, week, or thresholds.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for planned and completed workouts between two dates, with the exact format and timezone. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the resource and scope make the intended use evident alongside the sibling tool names.

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