get_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the need for profile auth and the recommendation to check auth status first. Since annotations already handle the core behavioral traits, the description's extra guidance about auth requirements is worthwhile and does not contradict 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 description is extremely concise—two short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: defining the tool's action and stating a prerequisite. No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary function.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations covering readOnly and idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It effectively communicates the core purpose and an essential prerequisite. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent from using this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (by virtue of having no properties). The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none. With no parameters to describe, the tool is self-explanatory in that regard; the description focuses on other useful information.

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 that the tool gets the full list of supported exercise types and their IDs. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'exercise types and their IDs' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_exercise_entries_month' or 'edit_exercise_entries', but the scoping to 'supported exercise types' vs. user entries or editing is implied by the contrasting nature of the sibling names.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after authentication) and implies a workflow dependency. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for similar purposes, but the auth guidance is strong.

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