get_workouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. The description only mentions that returns include summaries, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether there are rate limits, or what scope (e.g., time range, user) it retrieves. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 short (one phrase), which could be concise, but it omits critical information needed for correct tool selection and usage. Brevity at the cost of completeness is not efficient; the description does not earn its place as it leaves the agent underinformed.

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 no parameters, no annotations, yet an output schema exists, the description should explain what the output contains beyond 'summary' and clarify the scope (all workouts for what user/time?). Sibling tools suggest this is part of a fitness tracker ecosystem, so more context is needed. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to decide when to call this tool versus others like get_workout_by_id or activities.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document at the schema level. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none. A score of 3 reflects a passable baseline: no missing parameter information, but also no added 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 '所有训练计划（含摘要）' translates to 'All training plans (with summary)', which clearly indicates the tool returns a list of workouts with summary details. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_workout_by_id (single workout) or get_workout_templates, which reduces clarity for selecting the correct tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workouts_by_id for a specific workout, or get_activities_fordate for activities instead of workouts. No usage context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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