list_my_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses scope (user-owned, custom templates) and the existence of a `code` identifier, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result count, or whether scheduled/historical workouts are included, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the follow-up usage note is placed after. The first sentence is a fragment lacking a verb, but that does not hurt density or readability significantly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally should sketch the returned template shape (fields beyond `code`). It identifies the resource and one key field but leaves the rest of the return structure and any ordering/pagination behavior unspecified, which is only partially adequate for a no-schema list tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds a small amount of value by naming the `code` field an agent will consume from the results, which aids downstream parameter usage even though nothing is being passed in.

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 names the resource (the user's saved custom workout templates), which is a specific, distinguishable resource from siblings like list_exercises or browse_programs. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource, and does not directly contrast with get_workout, but the implication of a listing operation is clear from the name and content.

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?

It gives real downstream guidance — pair a template's `code` with get_workout, update_workout, delete_workout, or schedule_workout — which is useful chaining context. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before scheduling, to discover codes), leaving the invocation trigger implied.

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