withings_get_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavior. It clearly states it returns data 'sorted by date with type, duration, calories, distance, and heart rate data' and explains the default cache vs. live API behavior. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., API rate limits), but as a read-only operation with no mutation, this is sufficient for transparency.

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 summary, an 'Args' section, and a return/exclusion note. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The category list is long but necessary for completeness. Minor redundancy (repeating 'from cache' in both the first line and the 'live' description) could be trimmed, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown here), the description need not enumerate return fields in detail, but it does mention the return content. It covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and the scope limitation. It is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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?

Although the input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the description text thoroughly explains each parameter. It specifies date formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'YYYY-MM', or '90d'), defaults ('last 90 days', 'today'), the category filter case-insensitivity and the full list of options, and the 'live' flag's effect. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Get workout sessions (type, duration, HR, calories).' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting 'Not for daily step/activity totals -- use withings_get_activity.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'workout sessions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('Not for daily step/activity totals') and names the alternative tool. It also gives a prerequisite: 'Run withings_sync first to populate the cache.' Additionally, it explains the 'live' parameter for fetching from the API instead of cache, offering clear decision-making guidance.

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