get_movement_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the return content (every individual set with date, reps, weight) plus a computed 'Potential Max' trend line. It also surfaces a non-obvious operational requirement that the movement must be identified by both numeric ID and URL slug, which goes beyond a plain read/write characterization.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the requirement and example details, and there is essentially no filler. It is slightly dense in the second sentence, but every clause earns its place by clarifying the identifier pair.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly covers what comes back (sets plus the computed trend). It also documents the three required parameters and their composite nature; only minor omissions remain, such as behavior when history is empty or the effect of the days window rather than the default.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real value: it explains the composite requirement relationship between movementId and movementSlug and gives concrete example values (35, 'deadlift'). This is meaning the schema does not convey on its own.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the full logged history for a movement) and sharpens scope by contrasting it with what it is not: 'every individual set ... not just PRs'. The contrast lets an agent distinguish it from a summarization or PR-only tool 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells you the prerequisites (member ID plus movement numeric ID and slug) but never names when to pick this over search_movement or another sibling. An agent can infer 'fetch history for a known movement', but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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