Get library item

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the interval structure being included and the intended reuse scenario, which goes beyond the structured hints. However, it does not detail return format or edge cases, so a 4 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides usage context and ID sourcing in a compact way.

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?

The tool is simple, has strong annotations, and the description covers the core purpose, return expectation (full template with intervals), and usage context. There is no output schema, but the description's detail about interval structure helps set expectations. A small gap is not specifying possible response variations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is only 33% (only athlete described). The description compensates by indicating that IDs come from tp_get_library_items, which effectively explains the library_id and item_id parameters. It does not describe each parameter individually, but the provided sourcing hint adds meaningful value 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 states the tool retrieves a single workout template in full, including its interval structure. It distinguishes itself from the plural list tool tp_get_library_items and from tp_schedule_library_workout by emphasizing the full detail retrieval.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool: before tp_schedule_library_workout or when reusing the structure. It also points to tp_get_library_items for the source of IDs, giving concrete guidance on how to obtain valid inputs.

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