List workouts

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that limit is capped at 25 by WHOOP, that next_token continues a previous truncated response, that start/end default to last 7 days, and that 'detail' controls whether zone_durations are included, with units in a top-level 'units' key. This goes well beyond the annotations and explains pagination and response shaping.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args section. Each parameter has a concise explanation without redundant filler. Despite the length, every sentence adds necessary information, especially given the 0% schema coverage. It is efficiently packaged and easy to scan.

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 complexity of 5 optional parameters, pagination, and an enum, the description covers all necessary details: default date range, server-side cap, cursor semantics, and the difference between summary and full detail, including the top-level units key. With an output schema present, the description does not need to repeat return values, so this is complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: ISO 8601 formats for start/end, default ranges, limit cap and page size, next_token as a cursor, and the summary/full distinction for detail. This is exemplary parameter documentation that adds meaning the schema alone cannot convey.

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 'List' with the resource 'workouts' and enumerates the key fields returned (sport, strain, heart rate, zone durations). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_workout or list_sleeps, relying on the plural 'list' vs. singular 'get' naming convention.

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 provides implied usage context, such as the default 7-day range when start/end are omitted, and explains pagination use via next_token. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_workout for a single workout, or compare against list_sleeps/list_recoveries. This leaves usage boundaries to be inferred.

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