get_workout_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential dependencies and data complexity.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs), output details, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool that likely returns structured workout data, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively in this server's ecosystem.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workoutId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain ID format, sourcing, or examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 the purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific workout') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('workout'), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_workouts' (which might list workouts) or 'get_activities' (which might cover broader activity data), leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication via 'authenticate_garmin'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_workouts' (for lists) or 'get_activity_insights' (for analytical data), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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