get_workout_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's parenthetical '(read-only)' merely restates the annotation, earning no credit. It does add structural value by naming what the listing contains (folders, plans, workouts, ids), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or how deeply nested plans are returned.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the sibling pointer follows. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by describing the shape of the result (folders and plans with their workouts and ids) and by pointing at the detail tool. It leaves out nesting depth and result-size behavior, which an agent listing a large library might want, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so both parameters (folder, athlete_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the folder name-or-id rule and the athlete_id default. The description adds no filtering or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (athlete's workout library) and enumerates the returned entities: folders, plans, their workouts and ids. It also names the sibling get_library_workout as the single-workout alternative, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context ('Use to list the athlete's workout library') and explicitly routes detail requests to get_library_workout. It stops short of any when-not guidance or exclusion criteria (e.g., what to use for a filtered subset of workouts), so it's clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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