get_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently lists what the tool returns and what it excludes, adding context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects, error handling, or explicit read-only status, but as a 'get' operation, these are less critical. The description adds value by enumerating the exact fields and the exclusion, which is a solid behavioral disclosure for a simple retrieval tool.

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 concise—two sentences—with no filler. It front-loads the content list and immediately follows with the exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and direct.

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?

For a single-parameter get tool, the description is complete: it enumerates all returned fields, specifies the key exclusion, and references the alternative tool. It does not need an output schema because the fields are listed. The only minor ambiguity is the phrase 'what the console was actually holding constant,' but this is a specific field name and does not hinder correct invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('Workout id, from list_workouts. Either id form works.'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 tool returns a comprehensive set of derived metrics for a single ride (duration, distance, power, cadence, resistance, heart-rate averages, and a console constant). It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_samples by noting it does not return sample series. This leaves no ambiguity about what the 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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs it to the alternative: 'Does not return the sample series — use get_samples for that.' This is a clear exclusion and recommendation. It also implies usage for obtaining summary stats, while the sibling list_workouts is implied for obtaining IDs. This provides sufficient routing guidance.

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