garmin_resolve_exercise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the primary behavior and the fuzzy-miss behavior ('with suggestions on a miss'), which is material. It does not state read-only status explicitly, but the resolve/lookup framing makes side effects unlikely and the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a concise edge-case note. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and edge-case behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit comparison with sibling tools, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage with an example ('Barbell Bench Press'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a specific resource ('exercise name to its Garmin category/exercise pair'), which clearly identifies the tool's intent and sets it apart from sibling search/category tools. The mention of 'suggestions on a miss' adds a distinguishing behavioral detail.

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 implies usage context (normalizing an exercise name into a Garmin category/exercise pair), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over garmin_search_exercises or garmin_exercise_categories, nor any exclusion conditions. This is adequate but leaves selection guidance to inference.

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