get_exercise_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic action ('Get') and gives no information about read-only status, date range handling, pagination, or response format. The verb implies a read operation, but that is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant information, and it earns its place despite being terse.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'history' includes, how date filters affect results, or what data is returned, leaving substantial gaps for an agent invoking 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It implicitly covers exerciseTemplateId but fails to mention start_date and end_date entirely, leaving their purpose and format unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 retrieves exercise history for a given template, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('exercise history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exercise_templates (list templates) and get_single_exercise_template (template details) by focusing on historical data.

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 use when needing past performance for a specific template, but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_workouts or get_single_exercise_template. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving context partially clear.

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