v1exercises

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns up to 10 exercises and uses parameters, but does not cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: it identifies the API, states the action, and notes the result limit. There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and result limit, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. It implies that parameters filter the results, but does not explain interactions between parameters or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: it returns up to 10 exercises based on given parameters. It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('exercises'), and scope ('up to 10'), but since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives. This makes it clear but not maximally specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions that it returns exercises based on parameters, but this is implied usage rather than explicit instructions. With no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical but still a gap.

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