mfp_get_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about returning both cardio and strength details and honoring response_format, but it does not go deeper into edge-case behavior or side effects. There is no contradiction with 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?

The main purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are clearly structured. Some repetition of schema details keeps it from a perfect score, but the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only query tool, the description adequately covers what it returns and the available options. It does not mention empty results or error behavior, but the annotations and schema fill most remaining gaps, so nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents the date format, default-to-today behavior, and response_format enum. The description largely repeats this information rather than adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it provides marginal value.

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 gets logged exercises for a specific date, using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the scope by mentioning both cardiovascular and strength training exercises, making the purpose unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 'for a specific date' phrasing provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools like mfp_get_diary, so there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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