Get workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the 'raw' field holds Garmin's complete definition (every step, target, repeat), and it clarifies the workout-vs-activity distinction that an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of stating error behavior for an unknown id.

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 tight sentences, return shape first, then usage, then the sibling boundary. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still orients the agent on the raw field's contents. Combined with the annotations and the activity/workout disambiguation, nothing needed to select or call this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents workout_id as coming from list_workouts or list_scheduled_workouts, so the description's identical provenance note is largely redundant. High coverage sets the baseline at 3; nothing extra (validity, id format) is added.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return one saved workout by id') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, sport, description, estimated duration, raw). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_workouts and get_activity without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts ('before scheduling or pushing it', 'check what create_strength_workout or create_endurance_workout built'), names the id sources (list_workouts, list_scheduled_workouts), and draws a boundary exclusion ('a completed session is an activity: read it with get_activity or get_activity_sets').

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