Get Routines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint(false). The description adds the pagination cap 'Max 10 per page' and clarifies that routines are training templates, but does not describe response format, ordering, or other runtime behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, using two short, front-loaded clauses. Every word adds value, with no redundancy 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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is adequate: it states the resource type and pagination constraint. It lacks details like return format or ordering, but annotations and schema cover most safety and parameter needs.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'page' or 'pageSize' parameters beyond the generic 'Max 10 per page.' Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value over the schema defaults and constraints.

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 identifies the resource as 'saved routines (training templates)', which clarifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related tools like hevy_get_routine (singular). However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not fully differentiate from sibling tools.

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 usage is implied: fetch saved routines. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as using hevy_get_routine for a single routine or hevy_get_routine_folders for folder structure.

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