Get Exercise Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the fallback behavior for localized names and the structure of muscleGroups[].key, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; it enriches behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and content; the second adds actionable parameter and cross-tool usage. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and integration hint with get_stats. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'lang'. The description fully explains its purpose and effect: adding a localizedName field with fallback to nameEn. This is essential information that the schema does not provide, so the description compensates completely.

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 returns the full exercise catalog with muscle groups, equipment, and optional localized names. It is specific about the resource and content, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_stats or list_templates. However, the purpose is unambiguous given the context.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: it explains how to use the optional 'lang' parameter to add localized names and fallback behavior, and it suggests pairing muscleGroups[].key with get_stats for aggregates. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but it offers actionable usage context.

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