Get library workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: the returned workout includes its steps serialized in Intervals.icu text format.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name/title. Every word adds information about the operation or its output.

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 simple, idempotent getter with one fully described parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the definition covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. The workflow hint (id from list_workout_library) completes the context.

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 single required parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as 'Workout id (from list_workout_library)'. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one workout from the library'), and adds the key detail that it returns the workout's steps in Intervals.icu text format. This clearly separates it from list_workout_library and from create/update workout tools.

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 phrase 'from the library' plus the parameter description 'Workout id (from list_workout_library)' strongly signal the workflow: list workouts to obtain an id, then get that specific workout. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over sibling tools.

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