get-routines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the list is paginated and includes custom and default routines, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination details (e.g., page numbering, sorting) or authentication requirements. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value but could say more about behavior.

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: the first states the function, the second adds a use case. Every word is necessary; no repetition or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It mentions that custom and default routines are included. While it could mention sorting or folder context, the output schema likely provides return value details, so completeness is high but not maximal.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain the parameters 'page' and 'pageSize' at all. It only mentions 'paginated list' without linking to the parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the schema defaults and constraints alone.

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 'Get a paginated list of your workout routines, including custom and default routines.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('routines'), and scope ('paginated list, including custom and default'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-routine' (singular) and 'get-routine-folders' by focusing on listing all routines.

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 says 'Useful for browsing or searching your available routines,' which provides a clear use case. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for a specific routine, use get-routine), the context is clear and the sibling tools imply alternatives. No exclusions are given, but the guidance is sufficient.

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