list_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds only the source ('COROS Training Hub') and does not disclose ordering, pagination, return shape, or whether all workouts or only available ones are returned, but this is a simple read operation and the annotations carry much of the burden.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple listing tool, though it provides only the minimum context and does not add scoping or sibling-routing information.

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 straightforward read-only list operation, the schema and annotations cover the essential calling needs: all parameters are optional and documented, and safety is indicated. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what fields the listed workouts contain or how results are ordered, so an agent is left with some ambiguity about the returned data.

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 has 100% description coverage: name, limit, and sportType are all documented, including defaults and the sportType filter meaning. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('workouts from COROS Training Hub'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_scheduled_workouts or get_workout_details, though the resource wording implies a broader listing operation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_scheduled_workouts, get_workout_details, or search_exercises. No context is given about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where an alternative would be preferred.

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