Get workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on behavior for an unknown ID, no indication of what a workout record contains, and no scope constraints on 'library'.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource and lookup key are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves room for a useful clause about the identifier's origin or failure behavior.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. With no output schema and no description of the returned workout structure or error behavior for a bad ID, an agent still lacks some operational context.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents workout_id. The description only restates that the lookup is by ID, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific workout from the library by ID'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling list_workouts to contrast retrieval of one item vs enumeration, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the caller must already have an identifier, which is the natural precondition for use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as list_workouts or search_activities.

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