get_workout_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string), scope ('available to you'), and the nature of the data (structured workouts applicable to calendar). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'get' verb and absence of side-effect language make it clear.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, using line breaks to separate the summary, details, and return format. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Returns:' section, but it does not detract significantly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the scope and contents of the result and notes the applicability to calendars. The description would be slightly improved by mentioning pagination or limits, but these are not critical for this simple listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no parameter semantics. The description adds useful context about the return value (folders/plans) but does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: 'Get workout library folders and training plans.' It enumerates included content (personal, shared, followed plans) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workouts_in_folder by focusing on the top-level library rather than individual folder contents.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for retrieving all available workout folders and training plans. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives like get_workouts_in_folder or get_upcoming_workouts, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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