icu_get_workout_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, idempotent, and dynamic behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the results include personal, shared, and followed plans, clarifying the scope. However, it does not mention potential pagination or rate limits, which would be useful for transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value by explaining what the tool returns and how the output can be used with other tools.

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, annotations covering safety and behavior, and an output schema (present but not shown), the description sufficiently explains what is returned (folders and plans) and how to use the folder IDs. It is complete for a list operation with clear integration guidance.

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 the baseline score is 4 as per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, so this score is appropriate.

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 lists all workout-library folders and training plans the athlete has access to, using the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifying the resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icu_get_workouts_in_folder (gets folder contents) and icu_apply_training_plan (schedules a plan) by indicating that folder IDs from this tool can be used with those tools.

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 implies usage as a starting point for exploring workout libraries and mentions that folder IDs can be passed to other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No sibling comparisons or exclusions are given.

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