get-exercise-progress-by-ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and return fields, but does not clarify if the 'limit' parameter applies per exercise or total, leaving ambiguity. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 short paragraphs with key information front-loaded and a helpful example. No superfluous text, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains the core functionality and return fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, behavior when no results, and limit interpretation, leaving some 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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds an example with concrete parameter formats and clarifies optionality, but does not resolve ambiguity about limit scope. The added value is marginal 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 progress history for specific exercises with date range filtering, returns weights/reps/sets, and orders by date descending. It is distinct from siblings like get-exercises (list exercises) and get-workouts (workout summaries).

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 notes the tool is useful for tracking progress over time for particular exercises. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, the sibling context and clear purpose allow the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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