List workout sessions

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

The description mentions the ordering (newest first) and the optional date range, which adds some behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination behavior or any other side effects, but since the tool has readOnlyHint=true, the main missing context is whether the 'total volume' is computed or stored, and how the date range interacts with the ordering. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise and to the point, stating the verb, resource, key features (summary fields, total volume), and the ordering. The optional date range is mentioned, but the description is not front-loaded with the most critical information for an agent, though it is efficient.

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 the tool has an output schema (which the description need not duplicate), the description covers the essential purpose and key parameters. It lacks explicit pagination information and the exact format of the date range, but these are minor for a read-only list tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, and the description only mentions 'Optional date range' which partially maps to date_from and date_to. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, and the date range parameters are not given specific format hints beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema coverage is low, the description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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: listing workout sessions with summary fields and total volume, and it indicates that it returns sessions newest first, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_session (which likely returns a single session). However, it does not differentiate from other list-type siblings like get_body_metrics or list_exercises, though those clearly target different resources.

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 mentions an optional date range, which implies the tool can be used to retrieve sessions within a specific time period enfermedades, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_session or get_stats. The context of listing sessions is fairly clear, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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