list_workouts

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

The description calls itself 'Read-only' and explains auto-pagination behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It could improve by noting that the returned data is summary-level, but the field list already implies that.

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 only three sentences: one for purpose, one for return fields, one for pagination and sibling tool. No redundant words, well structured, and front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all expected fields. Parameters are fully documented with examples. The tool references a sibling for more detail. For a list endpoint with simple parameters and a clear use case, it covers everything needed.

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% with good descriptions. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'since' and 'until' relate to pagination and suggesting using 'limit:1' for the single most-recent workout. This compensates for any schema-only gaps.

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 returns recent Suunto workouts ordered newest-first, and lists all returned fields. It is specific about the verb ('returns') and resource ('workouts'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the API version and suggesting 'get_workout' for full detail.

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 explicitly says 'Use get_workout for full detail...' when more detail is needed, and mentions auto-pagination. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention prerequisites.

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