get_routine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Fetch') and adds that the return includes nested exercises and sets, which is useful behavioral detail. It does not discuss error behavior or authentication, but for a simple fetch these are not critical. The description adds value beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It states the action, resource, and what is included in the response. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are not typically required for a straightforward fetch. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by its ID', which essentially restates the parameter name 'routineId'. It does not explain the ID format, any constraints beyond minLength, or provide additional context about the parameter. The description does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single routine'), and the scope ('by its ID'). It also adds that the response includes 'all planned exercises and sets', which distinguishes it from listing or folder tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need a specific routine's details by ID. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous given the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'single routine'. Sibling tools like list_routines provide clear contrast.

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