get_strength_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, empty-result behavior, or how 'maximum strength' is computed (actual vs. estimated). The 'get_' prefix and zero-parameter schema imply a simple read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and adds the cross-reference at the end. Nothing is wasted, but the parenthetical is cryptic without prior knowledge of activityId.

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?

An output schema exists and no parameters need documenting, so much of the burden is covered. Still, the definition leaves open what 'maximum strength' represents and whether results cover all machines or only ones with recorded data — gaps an agent would want closed for a status tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical about activityId is a cross-tool hint rather than a parameter explanation.

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 the specific resource returned: current EGYM maximum strength, broken down per machine/exercise. The word 'Current' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_strength_history, though the distinction is left for the agent to infer rather than stated outright.

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 is only implied by the contrast between 'Current' and the sibling get_strength_history. The parenthetical '(activityId for get_strength_history)' hints at a workflow linking the two tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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