get_routine

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a routine with exercises and target sets, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if routine_id not found), or whether it requires authentication.

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?

At 10 words in one sentence, it is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly expanded to clarify the scope (e.g., 'including all nested properties') without losing efficiency.

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 output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose, but it omits context about error conditions (e.g., missing routine_id), expected behavior for invalid IDs, and why one might use this over similar tools like get_routine_folder.

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 sole parameter routine_id has no description in the schema, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond its name. The agent must infer that it's an identifier for a routine.

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 action (fetch), resource (a single routine), and scope (every exercise and target set). It effectively distinguishes from tools like list_routines which list multiple routines.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_routine_folder or list_routines, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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