tp_get_workout

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get workout details by ID' and adds no information about permissions, error behavior, return contents, or side effects. For a read operation, this is sparse but not misleading.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a useful sequence clue. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description leaves 'details' unspecified and does not explain what the response contains. However, for a simple get-by-ID tool with clear parameters, it is minimally viable but lacks richness.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with descriptions for 'athlete' and 'workout_id.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond saying to use it after listing workouts, which weakly implies where workout_id comes from.

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 and resource: 'Get workout details by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling list tool 'tp_get_workouts' by emphasizing the ID parameter and even suggests a sequence, reinforcing the detail-vs-list distinction.

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?

'Use after tp_get_workouts' gives explicit contextual guidance on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools for related purposes.

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