get_workout_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It does reveal an important behavior: it excludes GPS route data, making clear what the tool does not return. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or required permissions, but for a simple read operation this is arguably sufficient.

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?

A single concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does and what it intentionally omits. No filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and its scope. It tells the user what to expect (splits and details) and what not to expect (GPS route data). It could be more explicit about what 'details' include, but it is complete enough for basic usage.

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 has only one parameter (activity_id) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, relying entirely on the parameter name. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to explain the format, source, or how to obtain a valid activity_id (e.g., from list_workouts).

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('workout splits and details'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating 'without downloading GPS route data', making it clear this is for lightweight detail retrieval, not full route data.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool when you need workout splits and details but do not need GPS route data. It implies a lightweight alternative to route-downloading tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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