get_workout_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool only reports which per-sample track fields exist and defers actual track fetching to get_workout_track, which is a valuable boundary. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, how expensive it might be, or what happens on invalid trackids, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full analysis of one workout') before enumerating contents and ending with a pointer to the sibling. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey return semantics itself. It names the major result categories (HR zones, splits, drift, track-field existence) and clarifies the boundary with get_workout_track. It omits error handling, response shape, and any mention of performance, but for a single-parameter read/introspection tool the coverage is largely sufficient.

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 schema provides only a bare 'trackid' name with zero description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It does imply that trackid selects 'one workout', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. Still, it never explicitly defines trackid as the workout identifier, nor gives format or validation rules, so compensation is partial rather than thorough.

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 opens with 'Full analysis of one workout' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates concrete contents (HR zones, splits, drift, track-field existence) and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_workout_track by directing track-data fetches there, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 clearly implies this tool is for deep analysis of a single workout, as opposed to listing or summarizing. It also names get_workout_track as the alternative for fetching per-sample track fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus the other siblings like list_workouts or summarize_workouts, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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