Workout Plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details rendering features and required fields (video_url, estimated_calories, etc.), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., if progress tracking/history involves saving data) or whether it is read-only. This leaves some ambiguity, but the description adds value beyond the tool name.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers features, input format, and critical requirements without redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the output behavior (interactive, dark theme, expandable cards). It thoroughly covers input structure and required fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or specifics of progress tracking/history features, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with this many features.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the importance of certain fields (video_url, estimated_calories, duration_minutes, tips) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. It does highlight a validation requirement, but that's not new parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('interactive workout plan') with detailed features (dark theme, summary metrics, expandable cards, progress tracking). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling render_* tools like render_budget or render_comparison, which target different domains.

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?

It provides explicit input instructions: 'Pass plan as a JSON array of week objects.' This gives clear context on usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_workout_log or get_workout_log, nor does it state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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