get-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 states results are sorted by usage frequency and includes frequency, categorization, metadata. This discloses basic behavior but does not confirm read-only nature or handle potential pitfalls (e.g., performance for large date ranges).

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 concise (two sentences plus an example), front-loaded with the purpose, and every part adds value. No fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately indicates the return type (frequency, categorization, metadata) and sorting. For a simple list tool with four optional parameters, it is sufficiently complete. Could mention that results are a list of exercises.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value with a JSON example containing comments that clarify parameter usage (e.g., excludeUnused default, date format). This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'exercises', listing the data aspects (frequency, categorization, metadata) and note on sorting by usage frequency. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-exercise-progress-by-ids.

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?

Usage is implied through the description and parameter example (searching and filtering exercises). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor mention of alternatives.

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