Analyze workout

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by disclosing the side effect of saving full time-series data to a JSON file, which is beyond what annotations convey about data store safety.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with a list of result contents, and the second adds a key side effect. Efficient and well-structured.

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 two-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description conveys the main return contents (metrics, zones, laps) and the JSON side effect. It is complete enough for most use cases, though it does not specify where the JSON file is saved.

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 documentation covers only the athlete parameter, leaving workout_id undocumented (50% coverage). The description does not compensate by explaining workout_id format, purpose, or any constraints, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving workout analysis (metrics, zones, laps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_workout (basic details) or tp_get_metrics. The additional side effect of saving the time-series to a JSON file further differentiates it.

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 implies use when workout analysis data is needed, but it does not explain when to prefer this over alternatives such as tp_get_workout or tp_get_workout_prs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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