list_block

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 explains the core behavior: restricts results to server-created workouts only. It also discloses a related behavioral trait of delete_block (cannot delete non-server workouts). This is valuable context beyond what the schema reveals, though it omits other traits like pagination or error semantics, hence not a 5.

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 exceptionally concise: two short paragraphs, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, especially the scope limitation and the delete_block relation. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. It covers purpose, scope, and a key interaction with a sibling tool. It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully explains start_date, end_date, and block_name. The description only generically refers to 'a period' which aligns with the date parameters but adds no new meaning for any specific parameter. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Shows workouts this server has put in the calendar during a period.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Shows only its own workouts,' which differentiates it from any tool that might list all calendar entries. This is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'Anything you added by hand, imported, or got from a coach is invisible here.' It also references the sibling tool delete_block to clarify that these invisible workouts cannot be deleted by that tool. However, it does not explicitly mention an alternative for listing those other workouts, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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