list_planned_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-style operation ('List') and adds a useful integration detail: event IDs can be passed to delete_planned_workout. However, it does not disclose time-window behavior, defaults, or the response structure.

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?

Three tight sentences: what the tool does, when to use it, and how results connect to another tool. No filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

The description gives a clear use case and an integration hint, making a default zero-argument call viable. However, three parameters are undocumented and there is no output schema, so an agent wanting to customize the time window or understand the full return payload is left without guidance.

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% and the description adds no meaning for newest, oldest, or days_ahead. An agent cannot tell from the description what date formats or semantics these parameters expect, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'List calendar events' and enumerates the content (planned workouts, notes, races). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities, which concern a different kind of data.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use before writing a new week so existing plan entries are not duplicated.' This tells an agent when to call it. It does not explicitly contrast with list_activities or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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