detect_stagnation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and performs excellently: it explains the detection logic, reveals defaults for weeksBack and minSessions, specifies the sorted list return, and mentions a warning field for truncation. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a read-only analysis tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by defaults and return details. Every sentence adds necessary information without any fluff or repetition.

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 covers the tool's purpose, parameter defaults, return format (list sorted by percent below peak, descending), and a potential warning field. Since there is no output schema, it could further detail the exact fields of each list item, but the provided information is sufficient for most calling scenarios and the tool's simplicity.

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 mentions defaults (weeksBack=8, minSessions=3) and ties weeksBack to the 'window' and minSessions to 'recent sessions', providing some contextual meaning. However, it does not explicitly define the parameters' roles or mention the schema's min/max bounds, leaving the compensation partial. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds limited value beyond repeating schema defaults.

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 that the tool flags exercises whose peak estimated 1RM occurred earlier in the window, indicating stagnation. It uses a specific verb ('flag') and resource ('exercises'), and the condition distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_personal_records or get_exercise_progression.

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 purpose itself provides clear context for when to use the tool: when detecting stagnation in exercises where recent sessions fall below peak. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated condition is a strong usage signal. Defaults are provided, aiding immediate invocation.

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