Repstack.Search Exercises

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses matching semantics, the exact return shape with metadata fields, is_exact_match, optional filters, and the default limit. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only with no side effects, but 'search' and 'local registry' strongly imply that.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, and optional parameters. The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains compact without filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and an opaque input schema, the description covers the key operational details: what is searched, what is returned, which filters exist, and the limit default. An output schema exists to formalize return values, so the remaining gaps—such as exact payload nesting and requiredness of query—are relatively minor but still prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema is an opaque payload object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names query, equipment, movement_pattern, and limit, including the default of 20. It does not specify types or show how these map inside the payload object, but it compensates substantially for the generic 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('local exercise registry'), and the matching behavior ('matches display and aliases'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repstack.ingest_log and repstack.compute_metrics without needing to open schemas.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to search the local exercise registry. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling names imply the distinction but the description itself provides no direct routing guidance.

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