Get Hevy Workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and remote-call profile is covered structurally. The description adds little beyond that – notably it says nothing about what happens when the ID is unknown (error vs empty) – but with annotations and an output schema carrying much of the burden, this is not a severe gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification given the sibling ambiguity, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

The output schema and annotations relieve the description of explaining return values and safety. What remains missing is disambiguation from get_workout_details and any note on behavior for a missing/invalid ID, which matters for a lookup tool in a crowded sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. "By its ID" does establish that workout_id is the workout's identifier, but gives no format, source, or example (e.g., where to obtain the ID), leaving most parameter meaning unstated.

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?

Specific verb ("Fetch") plus a bounded resource ("one recorded workout ... by its ID"), which distinguishes it from the list-style siblings such as list_hevy_workouts. It does not, however, differentiate itself from get_workout_details, whose scope plausibly overlaps, so an agent cannot fully separate the two from the description alone.

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 statement and no named alternative. The phrase "by its ID" weakly implies the precondition of already holding an identifier, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_workout_details or get_hevy_workout_count.

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