get_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is static text with no athlete data, and it mirrors specific MCP resources, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding between resource and tool access.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by return content. No filler.

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 single-param read-only doc tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, return format, and staticness. Nothing relevant is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values carry per-value descriptions in the schema. The description adds the mapping 'usage = tool overview; workout-syntax = workout format; others = method of that analysis' and ties topics to the corresponding resource URIs, slightly exceeding the baseline.

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 clear verb+resource: reading documentation on workout syntax or analysis methods. It distinguishes itself from siblings (which are all data/analysis tools) by being the documentation lookup route, but doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: before writing a workout when short tool descriptions are insufficient, or to understand how an analysis works. Names the precondition that selects this tool over just reading the schema.

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