mfp_get_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return content (both cardiovascular and strength exercises with details like sets, reps, weight) and notes that response_format controls output style. This goes beyond safety profile and clarifies what the tool actually returns.

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 succinct and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence summary of return contents, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff 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 read-only lookup tool, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. It doesn't mention error behavior or pagination, but the presence of an output schema may cover those aspects. Overall, it is complete enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description explains that date is optional and defaults to today, and that response_format accepts 'markdown' or 'json'. Given the schema has 0% coverage (per context signals), the description fully compensates by providing meaning and defaults for both parameters. It doesn't mention format constraints like date pattern, but the essential semantics are clear.

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 directly states the action: 'Get logged exercises for a specific date.' It clearly specifies the resource (exercises) and scope (specific date). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mfp_get_diary or mfp_get_measurements by focusing on exercise logs.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need logged exercises for a date. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. Since it is a simple read tool, the implied context is sufficient for a basic score but not outstanding.

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