exercise_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency itself. It does so by specifying newest-first ordering, per-session granularity, and the exact metrics returned. It still leaves the response shape and limit behavior implicit, but for a read-oriented history tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the resource, ordering, and output fields. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the core needs: what it returns, at what granularity, and in what order. It is not fully complete because usage guidance and limit semantics are omitted, but the missing pieces are relatively minor given the low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the history is 'for one exercise', linking to the exercise parameter, and the default limit is visible in the schema. However, the meaning of limit (number of sessions returned) is not explicitly described, leaving a gap.

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 identifies the resource as per-session history for one exercise and specifies ordering and returned metrics. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve/list' and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like prs or weekly_volume, but its scope is unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: it never states when to choose this tool over prs, weekly_volume, or session_card, nor does it mention exclusions. The agent must infer the tool's place from its name and siblings.

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