analyze_workout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses reliance on Garmin's auto-detected interval structure and provides a fallback rule that the athlete's stated structure wins. It does not cover side effects, auth, or failure modes, but the tool is a read-only analysis and an output schema exists.

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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, compactly list the outputs, and close with an important caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need describing. The description covers the operation, default selection, and an interpretation rule; minor gaps remain around what 'rule-based notes' contain and when activity_id is necessary beyond the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default latest-run behavior and the single-run focus, but it does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'day' and 'activity_id'.

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 states a specific task, 'Deep dive into ONE run', and enumerates concrete outputs: HR zones, interval structure, weather, performance condition, and rule-based notes. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_trend or get_intensity_distribution by its single-run scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'Default: the latest run with detail' gives a clear default invocation, and the wording implies this is for granular single-run analysis. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_recent_activities or get_intensity_distribution, nor any exclusion conditions.

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