List workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the library holds saved workouts not on the calendar, the returned fields (name, sport, duration) exclude steps, and paging via start is disclosed.

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-loads what is listed and its scope, then routes to alternatives, then covers paging. Three sentences, no waste, every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain returns, and annotations cover safety; it still adds the not-on-calendar distinction and paging note. Folder/library-level filtering isn't mentioned, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 limit and start are already documented, including that start is an offset, not a date. The description restates only the start-skip behavior, adding little beyond the schema; 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 (saved workouts in the library) and clarifies scope: plans to follow with name, sport, duration but not steps. It distinguishes itself cleanly from list_scheduled_workouts, list_activities and get_workout in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use list_scheduled_workouts for what is planned on which date, list_activities for sessions already done, and get_workout for one workout's full step structure. Names alternatives with the conditions that select them.

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