Get Garmin activity workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the empty-result condition for non-workout activities and the detailed shape of the returned step/target/repeat data. Auth and rate-limit behavior are not discussed, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with the core description, then compact sentences for the sibling comparison, empty case, and ID source. The opening sentence is dense with enumerations but every element maps to real return content, so little is wasted.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the return structure — steps, end conditions, targets, repeat groups. Combined with the empty-result caveat and ID provenance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so the single activity_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a pointer to garmin_search_activities as the source of the ID, which is useful but modest; the baseline of 3 fits when the schema carries the definition.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource — the structured workout an activity was started from — and enumerates the returned content (steps, step-end conditions, targets, repeat groups). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming garmin_get_activity for planned-vs-actual comparison and garmin_search_activities for ID lookup.

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 compare with garmin_get_activity, notes the empty-result edge case for activities not started from a Garmin Connect workout, and tells the agent where to obtain the activity id. That covers when to use it, what it returns in the negative case, and the sibling relationship.

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