Get Scheduled Workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the default date range behavior ('Defaults to the next 12 months'), which is useful but not disclosed elsewhere. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or the output format beyond noting the workoutScheduleId. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the added detail about the workoutScheduleId and default range are relevant and concise. Every word 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?

For a read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: it lists workouts in a date range, returns the workoutScheduleId, and states the default range. It does not describe the full output shape, but given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations providing safety context, the description is mostly complete. A small gap is the lack of mention of sorting or result limits, but these are not critical for a basic list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both startDate and endDate fully described (pattern, meaning, defaults). The description's mention of 'Defaults to the next 12 months' reiterates schema information rather than adding new parameter details. Since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the description adds no unique value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 action ('List'), a resource ('workouts scheduled on the Garmin calendar'), and a scope ('in a date range'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the workoutScheduleId needed for unscheduling, tying it to unschedule_workout, and implying this tool is distinct from get_workouts.

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 context about default behavior and mentions the workoutScheduleId, which hints at a use case (unscheduling), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_workouts or schedule_workout. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are named, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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