get_scheduled_workout

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only fetch and adds the dependency on get_scheduled_workouts, but it does not describe error/not-found behavior, response contents beyond 'detail,' or side-effect assumptions. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple getter.

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 appropriately sized: a front-loaded one-line purpose statement followed by a compact parameter note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter, the description covers the operation and the source of the required ID. There is no output schema, so return structure is not documented, but 'detail' and the singular resource provide enough clarity for an agent to decide to call it. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error/return expectations.

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 only marks the parameter as a required string; the description adds that it is 'the scheduled-workout ID' and explicitly specifies its source as returned by get_scheduled_workouts. This is meaningful semantic information the schema does not provide, even though the exact format is not described.

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 detail for one scheduled workout instance.' The word 'one' and 'instance' clearly separate this from the list-style sibling get_scheduled_workouts, and the name itself identifies the target. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_workout, but the meaning is 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 Args section clearly states that scheduled_workout_id is 'as returned by get_scheduled_workouts,' establishing the correct precursor call and source of the ID. It doesn't state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like get_workout, but for a simple singular getter this is sufficient context.

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