list_workouts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description is consistent with a read operation. The description adds the 'structured library' context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or effect scope, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, followed by a compact parameter list. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but not bloated, keeping it efficient overall.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a key alternative. It lacks mention of related sibling tools like list_workout_folders, but this is not critical given the straightforward nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter explanations essentially repeat the schema (folder_id as optional filter, athlete_id default). No new semantic information is added beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 'List structured library workouts' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like list_activities and list_workout_folders. The explicit use-case 'browsing reusable workout templates' and the pointer to create_event for scheduling further clarify its unique role.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when browsing reusable workout templates') and provides an alternative for a common misinterpretation ('To schedule a workout onto the calendar, use create_event'). This is clear, direct guidance.

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