list_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It notably discloses that results are sorted newest first and contain only name and id, which gives the agent a clear expectation of the return format. While it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, the verb 'List' conveys this, and the described behavior is consistent with that.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and behavior, the second explains the only argument. Every word is functional, and it is front-loaded with the main intent. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the format, ordering, and parameter semantics. It could mention edge cases like an empty result set, but that is not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 only provides the 'limit' parameter with a default of 20 and no textual description, so the description's explanation ('How many workouts to return') directly compensates for this. It adds meaning to the parameter beyond its name and default, which is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 saved Garmin workouts, specifies the returned fields (name + id), and the ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities, which would target a different resource. The verb 'List' and resource are specific, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when a user needs to see saved workouts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. Sibling tools exist, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided beyond the inherent clarity of the resource name.

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