Search Exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the result is IDs rather than full objects, which tells the agent to follow up with a get call. It does not disclose matching behavior (substring vs. exact, case sensitivity) or any result-count limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The only weakness is that the terseness leaves the tool underspecified in ways noted elsewhere; nothing is redundant, but a single added clause about matching would have cost little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter search tool the definition is close to sufficient, but it omits match semantics, the meaning of 'available', and any hint about what to do when multiple results come back — gaps an agent must guess at.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description is the only source of meaning, and 'by name' does establish that query matches on name rather than ID or category. However, it leaves the crucial matching semantics ambiguous (partial match? exact? case-insensitive?), which is the main thing an agent needs to form a correct query.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('exercise templates'), a scoping dimension ('by name'), and states the return payload ('their IDs'). That distinguishes it reasonably well from list_hevy_exercise_templates (enumeration) and get_hevy_exercise_template (single fetch), though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you know a name and need an ID' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to list_hevy_exercise_templates for browsing or get_hevy_exercise_template for fetching full details. The word 'available' is also unexplained (all templates vs. only user-created ones).

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