get_exercise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; the verb 'get' and 'entry' strongly signal a read-only lookup, and it discloses the returned facets (notes, video, tracked params). It says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id, id format, or response shape, which is the minimum-viable-but-incomplete level.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by a colon-delimited list of return contents; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of being fragmentary, but the structure is efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing return contents and by the 'library' qualifier that distinguishes it from set-level siblings. It still leaves the id semantics and error behavior unaddressed for a tool whose only input is that id.

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% and the single parameter exercise_id has no description, so the description should compensate — but it never mentions the id or its format. 'For one exercise' only weakly implies a single exercise identifier, leaving ambiguity with the set-level id used by get_set_exercise.

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 concrete resource and scope: 'Full library entry for one exercise,' and enumerates what the entry contains (technique notes, video, tracked params). The word 'library' implicitly separates it from get_set_exercise and get_exercise_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over search_exercises (find an id) or get_exercise_stats (performance data). The agent must infer usage purely from the title and name.

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