polar_get_exercises

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail about return contents (heart rate zones and training load) and the optional samples flag. No contradictions with annotations were found.

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, using two clear sentences with no redundant wording. All important options are mentioned without clutter.

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 the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but the core behavior and return contents are sufficiently described for an agent to make an informed call.

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?

The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, including default behavior for omitted from/to, the format enum, and the samples boolean. The description reinforces these defaults, going slightly beyond the schema by mentioning the last-30-day default and the always-included heart rate/training load data.

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 operation ('Get exercises'), the default 30-day window, and optional filters. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polar_get_activities or polar_download_exercise, but the focus on exercises with heart rate zones and training load provides reasonable distinction.

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 explains optional date filtering and sample metrics inclusion, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as polar_get_activities or polar_download_exercise. The 'Always returns heart rate zones and training load data' hint is useful but not a full usage guide.

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