garmin_workout_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: repeat groups are returned expanded as individual steps, meaning the returned structure is flattened/lossy relative to the stored definition. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before round-tripping into garmin_workout_update, though error behavior for a missing id is not mentioned.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the caveat about repeat-group expansion follows as supporting detail. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the single id parameter is fully described in the schema. The description covers the round-trip use case and the flattening caveat, which is what matters most for this read tool. Only the not-found/error case is left unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains where the id comes from ('From garmin_workouts_list'). The description adds no further semantics about the id, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'One saved workout with all of its steps', which clearly distinguishes it from the plural garmin_workouts_list sibling. It also names the downstream consumer (garmin_workout_update) whose input format the result matches. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but 'One saved workout with all of its steps' is unambiguous enough for an agent to know the purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that the result is 'in the format garmin_workout_update accepts' hints at a get-then-update round trip, and the schema's 'From garmin_workouts_list' points at the prerequisite listing call. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion against siblings like garmin_upcoming_workouts or garmin_workouts_list, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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