get_workout_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns segments and step structure, and importantly calls out the rest-day UUID edge case resolving to a minimal record without a name or segments. This goes beyond the schema and helps set agent expectations, though it does not mention error or not-found behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses short bullet points to explain accepted ID variants and an edge case. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is not redundant because it reinforces the semantic difference between the two accepted forms.

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 tool has a single required parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: what the tool returns, what inputs are valid, and how a notable edge case behaves. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema only says workout_id is an integer or string with 0% description coverage. The description adds essential meaning by specifying that integers are numeric workout IDs from particular sources and strings are workout UUIDs from adaptive Garmin Coach/training-plan workouts. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Get detailed information for a specific workout', and clarifies the return content as workout details including segments and step structure. The sibling tools include list-style workouts (get_workouts, get_scheduled_workouts) so 'specific workout by ID' clearly differentiates this tool.

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 context on when to use this tool: when you have a numeric workout ID from specific workout-list families or a UUID from training-plan workouts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the source-of-ID guidance gives enough practical context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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