get_workout

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 does add valuable return-structure context (exercises in order, each set's reps/seconds, weight, Vita level, side, rest, and displayUnit) which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether it has any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the return structure and includes a useful unit clarification. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately outlines the return data but leaves key gaps: the meaning of the required 'code' parameter is unexplained, and no usage context or safety profile is given. It is enough to infer the basic operation but not complete enough to call confidently without opening the schema.

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 a single required 'code' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'code' represents, its format, or how it is used. The mention of 'a template's full prescription' loosely implies that the code identifies a template, but it does not compensate meaningfully for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource and return contents: a template's full prescription with exercises, sets, reps, weight, Vita level, side, and rest. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_my_workouts or get_session_detail. An agent can infer the purpose from the name plus the detailed return description, but the description alone is not fully self-contained.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites. Sibling tools like list_my_workouts and get_session_detail are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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