workouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are grouped by month, period, and type, but says nothing about read-only behavior, authentication, pagination, defaults, or how the start/end parameters affect the result set.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the grouping dimensions are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in parameter and usage guidance rather than compensating for them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves start/end semantics, usage context, and basic behavioral expectations unaddressed. For a two-parameter data retrieval tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, it is not complete enough to guide reliable invocation.

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%, and the description never mentions the start or end parameters. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating explanation in the description, an agent cannot tell whether they are date bounds, period identifiers, or something else.

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 identifies the resource (recorded exercise sessions) and the grouping dimensions (month, period, type), but it is a noun phrase with no action verb, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does with them. An agent can infer retrieval, but the purpose remains implicit rather than clearly stated.

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 such as trips, monthly_trends, or overview. The name and description imply it returns workout data, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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