list_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context about sport_type=4 being strength and its use for resolving planned workout entries, but does not disclose details like pagination, ordering, or catalogue scope. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and enriched with a practical use case. Every word earns its place; 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?

With high schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations already providing read-only/open-world context, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It provides enough integration context without needing to describe return values.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter (sport_type) with a clear description and default. The description reinforces that sport_type=4 is Strength, adding slight value beyond the schema but no new parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'the exercise catalogue', scoped by 'sport type'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities, list_workout_templates, and list_training_plans by focusing on exercises and mentioning their role in planned workouts.

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 states a use case: resolving strength/conditioning exercises (sport_type=4) that appear in planned workouts. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives.

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