Plan My Workout

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: query-name normalization (RDL, press-up, lat pulldown) and the meaning of the returned muscles.main/muscles.also fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately short. Minor waste: the opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim rather than adding information, but the remaining sentences are dense and earn their place.

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-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return fields (muscles.main/also) and input tolerance. Only the absence of sibling routing keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the single name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that colloquial/everyday names are accepted, which tells the agent it need not canonicalize input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieves how-to for ONE exercise) and enumerates the payload (muscles worked, picture), which distinguishes it from sibling list_exercises via the explicit singular scope. It stops short of naming the siblings to route the agent, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 example queries ('how do I do a Romanian deadlift?', 'what muscles do face pulls work?') give concrete trigger conditions for when to call it. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer list_exercises), so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered, and the description goes beyond it by disclosing precedence rules (fields over q), the seed-increment convention for repeat requests, the days>6 clamping with days_note, and the fact that running plans return week-by-week structures. It does not describe response shape for non-running plans, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause in the long second sentence carries routing information, so nothing is wasted. However, the second sentence is an extremely dense run-on that packs a dozen examples and edge rules into one block, which hurts scanability.

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?

With 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and a genuinely complex generator, the description does heavy lifting: it covers input precedence, defaults, clamping behavior, and the structure of the returned plan for running goals. It leaves the non-running return shape (plan.days_asked/days_note mentions aside) only lightly implied, but is otherwise sufficient to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning: it explains how q is parsed into days/minutes/level/goal/equipment, that fields override q, and the seed-plus-one convention that the schema only calls 'a different mix'. This goes beyond the schema's own parameter text.

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 opening states the resource and its content ('A weekly workout plan with sets, reps and rest'), and the example list makes clear it generates plans rather than looking up exercises, so an agent can distinguish it from get_exercise/list_exercises. It never names the siblings explicitly, and the opener is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, which keeps it just short of 5.

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 routes the agent exhaustively: natural-language examples map to intended inputs, 'days=1 gives a single session', 'fields win over q', 'a 10K or longer goal gets the build-up plan unless the user says they are a beginner', and '"give me another one"' maps to seed plus one. When-to-use conditions and conflicting-input precedence are both spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful reminder that muscle/equipment are optional filters, but says nothing about result counts, ordering, or how results are capped beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact set of disambiguating example queries. The examples earn their place by illustrating parameter combinations, though the four examples are slightly redundant with one another.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described input schema, the description supplies what remains: the request patterns that select it and the fact that filters are optional. Without an output schema it would be marginally better to note the shape of the returned exercise list, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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% for all four parameters, so the cheatsheets for muscle and equipment values, the level enum, and the limit range are all already documented. The example queries reinforce that muscle and equipment can be combined, but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (exercises) and the two filters that define scope (muscle, available equipment), so an agent can identify it as a filtered list tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular get_exercise or with get_workout_plan, so differentiation is only implied by the plural name and title.

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?

Concrete example phrasings ('what can I do for chest with no equipment?', 'glute exercises with bands') make it clear which user requests route here, and 'Give a muscle, equipment or both' states the valid invocation shapes. It never states when NOT to use it or points to the sibling tools as alternatives.

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