list_exercises

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation and mentions the optional filter. However, it does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or data source freshness. Since the tool is simple and the operation is obvious, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary information. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is largely complete. It provides the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the list is of exercises available for use in workouts, but this is already implied.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes the filter parameter as an optional string to search by name or category, which adds value beyond the schema's bare type definition. However, it does not specify the expected format or behavior (e.g., partial match, exact match), leaving some ambiguity.

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 lists available exercises for strength and cardio workouts. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('available exercises') with a clear scope. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from the majority of siblings that deal with adding or managing workouts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list tools like list_templates or list_workouts. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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