check_exercise_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively covers side effects (read-only, stateless, no modifications), authentication (none for basic usage, API key for pro), rate limits (10/day free tier), error handling (structured errors, no unhandled exceptions), idempotency, and data privacy. All these details are beyond the minimum.

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 well-structured into sections (first sentence, Args, Behavior, When to use, When NOT to use, Behavioral Transparency). It is somewhat verbose but each section provides valuable information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, error handling, and more. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which would be beneficial since no output schema exists.

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 0%. The description lists exercise_name and common_mistakes in the Args section, adding meaning: common_mistakes is a boolean to include corrections. However, the api_key parameter is not mentioned in Args, though it is implied in the Behavioral Transparency section regarding authentication. There is a gap for this parameter, so the description partially but not fully compensates for schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get exercise form cues, common mistakes, and muscle activation info.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_training_plan or generate_workout, which focus on different aspects of fitness.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It specifies that the tool is for structured analysis/classification and advises against real-time production decision-making without human review. This provides clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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