zepp_workout_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the nature of the data returned (laps, streams, GPS) but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Since it is a read operation implied by 'Full detail', this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no wasted text or repetition of schema 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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It references the companion tool for required IDs and lists the primary data components. The optional 'include' parameter is not mentioned, but its absence does not severely impair understanding due to output schema availability.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that track_id and source are obtained from zepp_list_workouts, giving them practical meaning. However, the 'include' parameter is left unexplained, and no other parameter details are provided, so it only partially compensates.

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 tool's function: retrieving full detail for a single workout, including laps, time-series streams, and GPS. It distinguishes itself from the sibling zepp_list_workouts by focusing on one workout and referencing that tool for identifiers.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Get the track_id and source from zepp_list_workouts.' This tells the agent how to obtain required parameters and implies a sequential usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools beyond list_workouts, so it falls 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.