get_session_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains the resolvedType:false sentinel, the account-scoped resolution via history, the conditional cardio/rowing blocks, and that weights are already in displayUnit. It omits auth expectations and any pagination/size limits, but the return-shape disclosure is well beyond the schema.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the advisory-parameter caveat and conditional return types. It is dense with detail but each sentence adds real 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by describing the returned per-exercise fields and conditional cardio/rowing additions. Remaining gaps — training_id semantics and ownership/auth constraints — are minor for a single-session read.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it defines `type` as optional and advisory and explains the history-resolution behavior. That covers `type` well, but `training_id` is only implicitly described (the id that must be in your history) and gets no explicit naming or format.

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 — the per-exercise log (sets, reps, weight per movement) for ONE completed session — which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_sessions and get_workout. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

It scopes usage to 'ONE completed session' and clarifies that only sessions the account owns can be read, implying the actor's own history. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over get_workout or compare_sessions, so routing guidance is only implied.

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