get_personal_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned fields (1RM, heaviest weight, most reps, date) and the filtering behavior, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or handling of empty results. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no superfluous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned and the two modes of use. It does not specify ordering or behavior when limit is exceeded, but these are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'across all exercises or for a specific exercise', reinforcing the exercise_name parameter's purpose. No additional meaning is needed beyond 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 clearly states the tool retrieves personal records (PRs) for all or specific exercises, and lists the specific metrics shown (1RM, heaviest weight, most reps, date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_exercise_progress or get_training_summary.

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 for retrieving PR data and mentions filtering by exercise, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_exercise_progress), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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