getActivityWorkouts

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it defines the return shape (ordered steps, intensity, duration type, targets, coach notes), documents the empty-list case, documents that null fields are omitted, and explains the non-obvious REPEAT_UNTIL_STEPS_CMPLT semantics. Missing only minor traits such as error behavior when activityId is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then fields, then the repeat-step special case, then the comparison hint. The enumerations of intensity/target values are dense but each earns its place; the REPEAT_UNTIL_STEPS_CMPLT sentence is long but necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does, covering step structure, ordering, empty results, and omitted nulls. A user can invoke and interpret the tool from this alone; only the repeat-step wording is slightly hard to parse.

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 coverage is 100% for the single activityId parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., where to obtain the id, whether the workout is keyed to a different id), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the concrete resource (the planned workout an activity followed, as created in Garmin Connect) and what it contains, which is more specific than the tool name alone. It stops short of a clean verb-first statement ('Returns the planned workout for an activity'), but the intent is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from the laps/sets siblings.

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?

Provides one situational hint: 'Compare it with getActivitySets or getActivityLaps for plan against done,' which implies this is the 'plan' side. It does not state when not to use it, or that the activity must exist / be synced, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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