list_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior ('capped by server policy and Hevy'), which is genuinely useful context, but omits the actual cap value, ordering, and any rate-limit behavior.

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 sentences, zero padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the constraint detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Combined with the pagination constraints, the definition is nearly complete for a simple paged list tool; only the listing scope/ordering is unstated.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does add the constraint 'page must be >=1' and warns that page_size is capped. That is meaningful, but the cap value is left vague and the defaults (page=1, page_size=5) are only in the 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List workouts'), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_workout and from list_routines on a different resource. However, it gives no scope detail (all workouts? filtered?) and never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_workout.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like get_workout and get_exercise_history available, the description never tells the agent when a bulk list is preferable to fetching a single workout or history.

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