garmin_exercise_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only historical lookup by saying 'previous performance' and 'recent strength sessions,' but it does not disclose any limits, error behavior, or whether results are per-set or per-session. There is no contradiction, but details are minimal.

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 12-word sentence places the core result and scope first and the use case last. No wasted words.

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 simple historical lookup with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description gives enough to choose and invoke the tool. It could be more complete on grouping or units, but those are likely covered by the output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents exercise, limit, and lookback_days. The description only adds the context 'one exercise' and 'recent sessions,' which is useful but does not materially extend the schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('one exercise across recent strength sessions') and the implied action is retrieving previous performance. It differentiates from siblings like search_exercises and strength_sets by scope, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Returns...'.

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 parenthetical '(for progression)' communicates a use case, but the description does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as garmin_strength_sets for current session details. Guidance is present but only lightly implied rather than explicit.

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