Get Concept2 Workout Stroke Data

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavior: the availability condition, the returned array structure, and the field names. It also notes that stroke data is typically large, justifying the default response_format. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement, followed by a caveat, return type overview, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose. The 'Args' section duplicates schema somewhat but adds the 'typically large' note. It could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns (array of stroke objects with possible fields). It covers the only relevant prerequisite (stroke tracking) and parameter details. Given the tool's simplicity, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explicitly listing requiredness for result_id, the default for user_id, and the rationale for response_format default (large data). It also clarifies that response_format can return markdown or json, which is already in schema but reinforced.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('per-stroke data for a specific workout result'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like concept2_get_result (which likely returns result summary without strokes) and concept2_list_results. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: stroke data is only available if stroke tracking was enabled, and tells the user to check the 'stroke_data' field on the result. This implicitly guides the user to first use a sibling tool like concept2_get_result to verify availability. It does not explicitly name alternatives but gives clear contextual guidance.

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