list_workouts

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

The description transparently discloses the read-only behavior (consistent with readOnlyHint), includes pagination behavior, and states the filtering default. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful behavioral context not already covered by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or openWorldHint.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information (listing scope, filtering behavior, pagination, ordering). There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and pagination but does not explain how to page through results (page_token) or the maximum page size. It omits potential edge cases like empty dates or timezone handling, but is adequate for a basic list operation.

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 descriptions exist for start_date, end_date, and activity_types, but page_size and page_token lack any explanation. The tool description only says 'Paginated' without clarifying how page_token works or the meaning of page_size, leaving two parameters semantically under-specified relative to the 60% schema coverage.

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 primary action ('List recorded workouts') and specifies the scope with 'by local date range' and 'Includes all activity types unless explicitly filtered'. The mention of pagination and ordering ('newest first') adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 when to use this tool (for broad listing by date range) and mentions filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_workout or get_workout_series. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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