Get Workout Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when workout_id is unknown, whether a remote call is made, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. Describing the returned payload would be the natural value-add, but the output schema already covers that.

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 a single short sentence with the action front-loaded, which is good. But the closing purpose clause "to inspect an analytic result" is vague filler that consumes a third of the text without clarifying scope or usage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the definition still leaves the caller without the ID's provenance and without any differentiation from the near-identical get_hevy_workout sibling. For a single-parameter lookup in a crowded family of workout tools, that gap is material.

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% for the single parameter workout_id, and the description never mentions it. It does not say whether the ID is a UUID, an opaque server ID, or the value returned by list_hevy_workouts, nor what happens on an invalid ID. The self-explanatory parameter name is the only thing carrying meaning here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get a workout's exercises and recorded sets") and even sketches the return contents, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling get_hevy_workout, and the trailing clause "to inspect an analytic result" is ambiguous about which analytic result is meant.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_hevy_workout, get_exercise_progression, or the list/search siblings. The phrase "inspect an analytic result" hints at a use case but never names the alternative or the condition that selects it, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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