show_week_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the inline-chart rendering, the preference for the interactive MCP app, and the short text summary returned alongside the visual.

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, each earning its place. The first front-loads the core function and content, and the second adds the usage preference and return format without filler.

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 simple optional-parameter, read-only visualization tool with an output schema, the description covers what is shown, how it is shown, and what accompanies it. The only real gap is not signaling that the range is configurable beyond the default 7d, but the schema fills that.

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 already documents the range parameter with enum values, default, and 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail and slightly frames the tool as fixed to 'past 7 days' even though range supports 30d, 90d, and 1y.

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 names a specific resource ('past 7 days of workouts'), specific metrics ('heart points per day, days trained'), and the presentation format ('inline chart'), so the tool's job is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as show_workout or show_week_fit_score, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear triggering context: when the user asks about this, prefer calling this tool and rendering the interactive MCP app over describing rows in text. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is still actionable.

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