Get Bike Workout Schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: 'Return' implies a non-mutating introspection call, and it discloses a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that a human 'power' string like '220W' expands into intensity_type=6 with watts in intensity_value/intensity_value_extend. The 'if captured' hedge on intensity labels honestly flags that part of the payload may be absent, though it doesn't say what happens then.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of what is returned, then a scannable bullet list of contents. The bullets are informative rather than padding, though the final bullet mixes several concepts (input format, intensity_type, value fields) and could be tightened.

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 zero-argument introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete — the return shape is documented structurally and the semantics of the tricky parts (power expansion, presets) are explained here. Minor gaps: no statement on invocation cost/caching or what the response looks like when intensity labels were not captured.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's detail about power-string formats adds value to the payload interpretation rather than to invocation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return the shared bike-step contract') and immediately names the two sibling tools it serves (create_bike_workout, update_bike_workout), which also distinguishes it from get_run_workout_schema and get_strength_workout_schema. An agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the output schema.

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?

By stating the contract is 'used by create_bike_workout and update_bike_workout', it makes the intended context of use clear, and the enumeration of contents implies you consult it before composing a bike workout payload. It stops short of an explicit instruction ('call this first when you need field names'), and no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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