Get Strength Workout Schema

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

With no annotations the description carries the load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it is a pure vocabulary lookup, and notably that strength updates reuse the generic update_workout tool. That cross-tool relationship is non-obvious context an agent could not infer from structured fields. Minor gap: no statement about staticness or stability of the vocabulary.

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 one-line purpose followed by a tight, scannable bullet list of contents and a single closing usage sentence. Every line adds information; nothing is duplicated or padded.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-param lookup, the description covers what it returns, which tools consume it, and how to follow up (list_exercises(sport_type=4)). An agent has everything needed to call it at the right moment.

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 beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline applies; the description does not need to add parameter meaning here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the strength-workout field vocabulary') and then enumerates exactly what that vocabulary contains (exercise fields, step_updates patch fields, target_type aliases). The 'strength' qualifier plus named sibling tools (create_strength_workout, update_workout, list_exercises) let an agent separate it from get_run_workout_schema and get_bike_workout_schema without opening any 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?

Explicitly says to call it 'before authoring or editing a strength workout so the patch vocabulary is explicit rather than guessed', and names the downstream tools whose inputs it governs. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct sibling comparison ('use get_run_workout_schema for run programs'), but the scoping is clear enough to route correctly.

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