Exercise History

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those hints: 'every recorded set' specifies set-level granularity, 'for one exercise template' clarifies the required scoping, and 'over time' implies chronological data. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but given the annotations this is adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a use-case rationale. Every word earns its place with no repetition or 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?

The description conveys the output granularity (sets) and the scoping (one exercise template) well, which is a solid foundation. However, with no output schema and no mention of date-range behavior, response format, or required parameter identification, the description is not fully complete for a tool that has 3 parameters and no structured response definition.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate—but it provides almost no parameter-level guidance. It hints at the template scoping (which maps loosely to exerciseTemplateId) and time period ('over time'), but never explicitly maps endDate, startDate, or exerciseTemplateId to their roles. The agent is left to infer too much.

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 (every recorded set for one exercise template) and the time-based scope, and it contrasts with sibling tools by framing this as the tool for judging progression. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 phrase 'the right tool for judging progression on a specific lift' gives a clear when-to-use context and implicitly distinguishes it from one-time template lookups or general workout listings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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