icu_get_workout_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope about what is listed (personal, shared, followed plans) but does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficient sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up usage guidance follows naturally. No filler or repetition; every sentence 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 need not explain return values. It communicates what the tool lists and how to use folder IDs downstream. Minor ambiguity exists because it says 'Each folder ID' can be passed to icu_apply_training_plan, potentially conflating folder IDs with training plan IDs, but overall the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the single athlete_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resources ('workout-library folders + training plans') with clear scope ('personal, shared, and followed plans'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming downstream tools (icu_get_workouts_in_folder, icu_apply_training_plan) that are used after this call, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly indicates the follow-up actions: folder IDs can be passed to icu_get_workouts_in_folder to see contents or to icu_apply_training_plan to schedule. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a competing alternative, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the entry point for the workout library.

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