get_workout

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It communicates that this is a read operation returning structure details, but it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or whether the response could be partial. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, and the return contents are summarized, so it is minimally adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and output contents, and the Args block gives necessary parameter provenance without wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what the tool returns and how to source the required ID. It lacks only deeper behavioral guarantees such as error handling or response verbosity, which are not critical for invoking it 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?

The schema only says workout_id is a required string, so the description must add meaning. It does: it explains the ID is 'as returned by list_workouts or get_scheduled_workout,' which tells the agent where to obtain a valid value. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full structure of one workout: segments, targets, intervals.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and differentiates it from list_workouts by focusing on a single workout's detailed structure.

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 description gives clear workflow context by stating that workout_id comes from list_workouts or get_scheduled_workout. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended call sequence is evident.

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