validate_workout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states 'compile' and 'return JSON', but does not clarify whether the tool modifies state, has side effects, requires permissions, or how it handles errors. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence of 14 words. Every word contributes to the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters, the description covers the core function. However, it lacks details on validation behavior, error handling, and the effect on the current workout state. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value documentation.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not add parameter details. It adds value by specifying that the operation applies to the 'current workout', indicating state dependency.

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 verb 'compile' and the resource 'workout', specifying the output as 'Garmin API JSON for inspection'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_workout' and 'preview_upload' by focusing on inspection, though it doesn't explicitly contrast these tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'preview_upload' or 'save_yaml'. The description implies it is for inspection before upload, but does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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