Get strength workout

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable detail about the response contents (prescribed vs executed values, RPE, feel, compliance), which is especially useful since no output schema is present.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides essential context (where to find IDs). Zero filler.

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's low complexity, the description covers all key aspects: what it returns, how to identify the workout, and implicitly when to use it. With read-only annotations, no output schema, and 2 simple parameters, this is fully sufficient.

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 100%, providing descriptions for both workout_id and athlete. The description adds extra guidance by telling users to get IDs from tp_get_strength_workouts, enriching the meaning of workout_id 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 strength workout's full detail by ID, listing specific contents (blocks, exercises, sets, RPE, feel, compliance). This distinguishes it from siblings like tp_get_strength_workouts (list) and tp_get_workout (general).

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 explicitly directs users to get IDs from tp_get_strength_workouts, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context of full-detail-by-ID is clear enough for typical use.

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