get_strength_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it 'walks' activities and 'returns' data, clearly indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly say it makes no modifications, though the nature of a history query makes that nearly implicit.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence followed by an Args block. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds useful information. The front-loaded summary provides immediate clarity.

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?

All parameters are optional and fully explained. The return value is summarized as 'per-session weight x reps', which is adequate for a no-output-schema tool. It could specify the exact structure (e.g., array of sessions) but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 provides only default values and types with no descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: exercise_name as a case-insensitive substring filter, weeks as lookback window, and max_sessions as a cap. This adds clear semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opening phrase 'Progressive-overload view: strength sets grouped by session over recent weeks' clearly states the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trends, get_exercise_sets, and list_activities by focusing on strength sessions and per-session aggregation.

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 clearly implies when to use it ('so you can see whether a lift is going up') and provides context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It gives a strong intended use case without exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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