get_exercise

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload (muscles, equipment, laterality, form description/cues, media). It says nothing about failure behavior for a bad group_id, permission needs, or freshness/caching, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the payload stated first and no filler. The em-dash aside about unilateral exercises is slightly tangential but does add domain value rather than padding.

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?

For a 1-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back but leaves the required parameter and the call-vs-alternative decision unexplained. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% and the single parameter 'group_id' is undocumented both in the schema and in the description. The description never mentions group_id, leaving the agent to guess whether it identifies an exercise, a muscle group, or a superset — a real ambiguity for a tool whose only argument is required.

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 states a specific resource ('one movement's details') and enumerates the return fields, so an agent can tell it apart from list_exercises or get_exercise_history in broad terms. It never explicitly names an alternative, though, so differentiation is inferred from the field list rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools it sits among (list_exercises for browsing, get_exercise_history for logs). The parenthetical about unilateral mattering 'when building workouts' hints at a use case but gives no selection rule.

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