get_workout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond annotations by documenting the returned workout structure, including Steps types and Cues, plus rider_ftp_w for interpreting watts as % FTP. It omits error behavior for invalid ids, but the return-content disclosure is strong for a no-output-schema tool.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource scope before listing return fields. The long field list is justified because there is no output schema, though the lack of an explicit action verb makes the opening slightly less crisp than it could be.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and readOnly annotation, the main missing structured information is the return shape, and the description covers that extensively. It does not fully explain when to choose this over list_workouts, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains workout_id fully, including that it comes from list_workouts. The description adds only the implication that the returned workout belongs to the rider; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as one of the rider's own workouts and enumerates its fields, so retrieval is strongly implied. However, it never states a retrieval verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_workouts or the mutation siblings. The purpose is understandable but requires inference.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_workouts or get_activity. The schema says workout_id comes from list_workouts, but the description itself gives no usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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