read_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: catalogue size and language, match-ranking behavior (best matches first), and the fact that a capped result flags truncated:true. It stops short of describing the response shape in detail.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and source scope, then layers matching rules and enum values. It is dense and somewhat crammed with enum lists, but every clause (shorthand, plurals, exact-match filters, id handoff) carries actionable information.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers source scope, query matching, filter semantics, valid enum values, result ordering and truncation, and the id reuse pattern. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description nevertheless adds genuine meaning: the full enumerated body parts and categories, the rule that category applies to built-in exercises only, and the query matching semantics (shorthand, plurals, run-together names, typos). This exceeds the baseline for the coverage level.

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 specific verb+resource (find exercises) and precisely scopes it: openGym's built-in catalogue (5,632, English names) plus the profile's own custom exercises. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read_exercise (singular, id-based lookup).

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?

Explains how search matching works (all words must match, best matches first, shorthand/plurals/typos tolerated) and that filters are exact and case-insensitive, which tells the agent when this fuzzy-search tool is appropriate. The closing 'Use the returned id in other tools' implicitly routes to alternative tools like read_exercise, but it never explicitly names when NOT to use this tool.

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