list_exercise_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds context by noting Hevy enforces a max pageSize of 10, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination behavior (e.g., how to fetch pages, whether total count is returned), error handling, or return format. The lack of output schema makes this a notable gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical constraint and an alternative guidance. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers purpose, the page size cap, and an alternative. However, without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left without details on the response structure, pagination flow, or how to handle potential errors. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and process results.

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. While the parameters (page and pageSize) are self-explanatory pagination fields, the description only elaborates on pageSize through the max cap constraint. It does not clarify the semantics of 'page' (e.g., 1-indexed, how pagination flows) beyond the schema's default. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool lists exercise templates, including both built-in and custom types. It uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource and scope, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling search_exercise_templates tool which is for fuzzy name matching.

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 explicitly directs users to prefer search_exercise_templates for fuzzy name search, providing a clear alternative for a specific use case. This is strong guidance beyond just stating what the tool does.

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