export_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the tool writes to disk, returns a path rather than file contents, and explains the size rationale. It could add details about overwrite behavior or file naming, but the core side effects and output behavior are well disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, then a concrete behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema the description must explain return value and side effects, which it does by stating a path is returned and contents are intentionally omitted. Minor gaps remain around output file naming/extension and overwrite semantics, but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is only 50%, and the tool description does not compensate. The 'id' parameter is only typed as a string with no explanation, and although the description mentions 'one ride', it never explicitly maps that to the id parameter. The 'path' parameter is already explained in the schema and gains no extra meaning.

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 states a specific action ('write one ride to disk'), a concrete resource outcome ('lossless JSON export document'), and the document's composition. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_workout by explicitly saying it returns the path, not the contents.

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 implies the tool is for persisting a workout for later use and that it should not be used when contents are needed in conversation. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not-to-use conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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