Get Exercise Library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this excellently by warning that `category` and `movementPattern` are often null or unreliable, explaining that defaults like 'compound'/'push' are common, and instructing the agent to infer movement patterns from the exercise name and muscleGroups instead.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the return content, the second gives the use case, and the third provides a critical data-reliability caveat. The most important operational guidance about unreliable fields is placed at the end but remains tightly scoped and relevant.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: what data is returned, why to call it, and how to interpret unreliable fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents `equipment` and `muscleGroup` as comma-separated filter examples. The description adds only 'optionally filtered' and does not contribute additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the user's exercise library') plus the exact data fields included. The phrase 'optionally filtered' and the use-case hint ('when proposing a workout') make it easy to distinguish from sibling history and template tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to know what exercises/equipment are available when proposing a workout.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is described well enough for an agent to select it.

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