List workout library

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that this returns a summary view (name, sport, duration, load) and explicitly does not include workout steps, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the contents are listed concisely, and the pointer to get_workout is placed at the end without disrupting the main statement.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema, full parameter coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, the optional filter, and where to go for more granular workout steps, with nothing essential 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?

The schema already fully documents the single optional folder_id parameter with the description 'Only this folder or plan,' so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. Nothing in the description contradicts or enhances the schema's parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the athlete's workout library'), then enumerates the contents: folders, training plans, and workouts with name, sport, duration, and load. It also distinguishes this tool from get_workout by noting that the steps of a workout are not included here, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 routes the agent to get_workout when the steps of a workout are needed, which provides clear guidance for a closely related alternative. It does not enumerate other sibling tools like list_activities, but the scoping to 'workout library' and 'training plans' is enough to imply when this tool is appropriate.

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