get_personal_records

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

With no annotations, the description provides some transparency by listing the fields returned (reps, weight, scaledWeight, units, setNumber), which tells the agent what to expect. However, it doesn't discuss ordering, pagination, or what qualifies as a 'personal record,' nor any potential failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, no irrelevant detail, and the key information is front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and the purpose. It doesn't describe response structure (array vs object) or error handling, but for this low-complexity tool, it is relatively complete.

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 single parameter exercise_id is only named in the schema without description, and the tool description does not explicitly define it beyond 'for an exercise.' The name is self-explanatory, but at 0% schema coverage, the description should have explicitly stated it takes the exercise ID to retrieve records for, which it does only implicitly.

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 retrieves all personal records for an exercise, specifically broken down by rep count. This is more specific than merely saying 'get records' and distinguishes it from generic stats tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_exercise_stats or get_working_max.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over sibling tools like get_exercise_stats or get_working_max. There are no usage caveats or exclusions.

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