get_working_max

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

The description discloses the return structure ({value, hasReferenceMaxExercise, referenceMaxExercise}), which adds behavioral insight beyond the empty annotations. However, it does not explain the meaning of these fields, nor does it mention whether the operation is read-only, has any side effects, or requires specific permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second gives the response shape. There is no fluff or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter getter, the description provides the core purpose and return format, which is helpful. However, it lacks usage context, parameter explanation, and any caveats about behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, it is minimally viable but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the exercise_id parameter. It only says 'for a specific exercise,' which essentially restates the parameter name. It does not clarify what a working max is, how to find the exercise_id, or any constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current working max') with a clear scope ('for a specific exercise'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_personal_records or get_exercise_stats, which cover different concepts.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The sibling tools are not referenced or contrasted.

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