get_exercise_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: optional case-insensitive substring filtering via 'query' and the returned exercise fields. However, it does not clarify how team_id is used, whether team_id is required, or any pagination/ordering behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, each earning its place: the main purpose, the optional filter behavior, and the return structure. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description provides the essential return fields and filter semantics. However, it lacks explanation of team_id's role, which is a key parameter, and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'query' parameter as a case-insensitive substring match on name, which is valuable. However, 'team_id' is not described: its meaning is only hinted by 'for a team', and its optionality and default behavior are unclear.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full exercise library' with scope 'for a team', making the purpose specific. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_exercise_detail and get_circuit_library through the term 'exercise library' and 'full', but does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_exercise_detail or get_recent_exercises. It implies usage when the full library is needed, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when to choose a different tool.

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