read_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the fallback id format for pre-id workouts ('YYYY-MM-DD|<start>') and the multi-workout-per-date behavior of returning a list of ids. It stops short of full transparency only in not discussing volume/size limits of the returned payload.

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?

It is front-loaded (purpose first, edge cases last) and each sentence carries information that no output schema supplies. But the first sentence is an extremely long multi-parenthetical run-on whose nested set-field inventory overwhelms the reader; the density hurts rather than helps scannability.

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, the description correctly assumes the burden of describing the returned shape, and it does so thoroughly: exercise structure, set fields, workout-level fields (name, volume, bestWeight, weightMeans), and the openGym 'other' passthrough. The main gap is the absence of guidance on which sibling to call when a date returns multiple ids.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `id` and `date`, including the 'YYYY-MM-DD|<start>' fallback and the local-calendar-day meaning of date. The description restates those same facts rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the 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?

The opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('One workout set by set') and the two retrieval keys ('by `id` or by `date`'), which clearly separates it from the plural sibling read_workouts. However, the purpose statement is buried under a dense pile of return-shape detail, and the sibling is never named explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. read_workouts or read_exercise_history). The only routing hint is the implicit 'A date with several workouts returns their ids to choose from', which gestures at a follow-up call but never states the decision rule directly.

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