get-workout

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return content (including exercise data) and implies read-only via the verb 'Get', but it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or the absence of side effects. This is adequate for a simple get but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word contributes. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and standard get semantics, the description covers the key return fields. It lacks only minor details like not-found handling or how to obtain an ID, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only says 'by ID', adding no format, example, or context for the workoutId parameter. It merely restates the property name without helping the agent understand what value to pass or where to obtain it.

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 states the tool gets complete details of a specific workout by ID, distinguishing it from siblings like get-workouts (list) and get-workout-count. It enumerates the response fields (title, description, times, exercise data), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 'by ID' implies use when you have a workout ID, but no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that get-workouts should be used for listing, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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