Get Workout Templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the round-trip data contract ('Each slot comes back in exactly the shape save_workout_template/update_workout_template accept') and warns that the update tool replaces the entire exercise list. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or clarify empty-result behavior, but 'Returns' plus the workflow context is a strong disclosure.

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 three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The middle sentence is dense but packs the full data contract, and the final sentence gives actionable workflow guidance. There is no fluff, though the second sentence is slightly long.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by detailing what is returned and by referencing the exact shape that save/update accept, giving the agent a precise expectation of the response. It could mention what happens when no templates exist or how multiple templates are ordered, but for a read tool with one optional parameter, it is largely complete.

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%, with the parameter already well documented (optional single template by fuzzy-matched name or id; omit to return all). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('the user's saved workout templates') and enumerates the exact contents: full ordered exercise lists with target sets/reps/rest, tempo, intensity, suggested weight, and superset grouping. It also distinguishes itself from the update tool by positioning itself as the read step before a destructive update.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before update_workout_template' and explains why: that tool replaces the whole exercise list, so the current state is needed first. It also references the shape accepted by save_workout_template/update_workout_template, making the intended read-modify-write workflow unambiguous.

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