lookup_exercise_form

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

While the tool name suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require specific permissions. It only describes the return structure (three lists) but offers no other behavioral details. Without annotations, the description carries full burden, and this is an average disclosure.

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 totaling 16 words—with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers return types and general purpose. It lacks details on error handling or behavior for missing exercises, but is mostly complete for basic use.

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?

Both parameters (exercise_name, equipment) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: retrieving form cues, common mistakes, and equipment alternatives for an exercise. It uses a specific verb-resource structure and is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on plans, fatigue, principles, templates, and sessions.

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 implies usage for looking up exercise form but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a straightforward lookup, this is minimally adequate.

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