get_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'exact ID' nuance and says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown or about the scope of data returned, leaving little beyond the structured fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and every word earns its place 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. For a simple by-ID lookup this is minimally adequate, but it omits where IDs originate and what happens on a miss.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter. It does tell the agent the value must be an exact Hevy workout ID, which is meaningful, but gives no format example or hint about retrieving a valid ID.

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 (Get), resource (one workout), and identity key (Hevy workout ID), which cleanly separates it from the list_workouts sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but 'one' versus a list is an implicit contrast an agent can act on.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus list_workouts or get_exercise_history, and no statement of where the workout ID comes from. The only usable cue is the word 'exact', which implies no fuzzy or name-based lookup.

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