get_workout_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what exactly is returned, whether activity_type filtering is supported, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves significant uncertainty.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action and scope. It is slightly terse, but conciseness itself is strong; lack of detail is more a completeness concern.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only a one-line summary. It does not explain return values, parameter constraints, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only vaguely references 'a date range'. It does not explain start_date/end_date format or semantics, and it completely omits the optional activity_type parameter. Some context is provided for the date parameters, but not enough.

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 gets personal workout records filtered by date range, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workout records'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `query_workouts`, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses the full 5 for sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is used when a date-range-filtered list of personal workout records is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over `query_workouts`, `summarize_workouts`, or `compare_workout_periods`. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance remains implicit.

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