read_routine

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lowered. It adds real value beyond the annotations by detailing the returned payload and the important caveat that the app's prescribed next values may differ from stored history due to progression. It omits error behavior for a missing id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dominated by a massive parenthetical enumerating every write_routine field, which is far more detail than needed to call a read tool with one id. The useful information (what it returns, the progression caveat) is buried after the enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, describing return values is warranted and the description does so exhaustively. However, the enumeration is unstructured and the parameter and error/edge cases are unaddressed, so it is verbose without being fully complete.

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?

The schema documents only the required 'id' with a regex pattern and 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It says nothing about what the id is or where it comes from, though the surrounding verbosity implies a routine identifier. Adequate but with a clear gap for the sole parameter.

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 opening 'One routine' plus the enumeration of what is returned makes it clear this fetches a single routine with full exercise detail, distinguishing it from the sibling read_routines list tool. The verb is implied (read) rather than explicit, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 singular framing ('One routine') implicitly routes the agent here when a specific routine is needed rather than the list, but it never states when to use read_routine vs read_routines explicitly, nor any prerequisites. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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