get_scheduled_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only notes that the 'period' parameter is informational—it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or what happens to the data. The lack of behavioral context leaves an agent uncertain about side effects or access needs.

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 very short at two lines plus an Args section, which is concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then adds the parameter note. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated, and the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which may document return values), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain what 'upcoming scheduled workouts' means relative to the training calendar, how results are ordered, or any limitations. The substantive output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but behavioral and parameter gaps remain.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate, but it only marginally addresses the single parameter 'period' by calling it informational. It does not explain valid values, format, or how the parameter affects results beyond the default of 'next 30 days'. This is insufficient for an agent to use the parameter correctly.

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 uses the verb 'Show' with the resource 'workouts scheduled on the Garmin training calendar', which clearly states the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'list_workouts' (which likely lists available workout templates) and 'schedule_workout' (which schedules a new one).

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 mentions the 'period' argument is currently informational and all upcoming scheduled workouts are returned, giving some context on usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workouts' or 'get_activities_on_day', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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