get_garmin_workout

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds the no-session behavior ('returns a message asking you to run authenticate_garmin rather than throwing') and clarifies that the full structure includes steps, targets, and repeat blocks, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, the update sibling relationship is placed second, and the auth note is last. Every clause earns its place, and the text is compact yet informative.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (raw JSON with full structure), the exact use case, and the behavior when authentication is missing. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether or how to call it is left out.

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 100% — the workoutId parameter is already described as the numeric Garmin workout id from create/list. The description only repeats 'by its workoutId' without adding new meaning (e.g., format, validation, or source). Therefore, a 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'complete stored structure of one workout' and specifies the components (steps, targets, repeat blocks) and output format (raw JSON). It also differentiates from siblings by naming update_garmin_workout and authenticate_garmin, so an agent can distinguish it from list or delete operations without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to inspect a workout, or to get its full contents before calling update_garmin_workout' and warns that update replaces rather than patches. It also addresses the auth edge case by mentioning authenticate_garmin as the alternative when no valid session exists. This gives clear when-to-use and a conditional fallback.

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