get_exercise_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 well: it discloses sort order (oldest -> newest), per-day aggregation ('one entry per training DAY, same-day sessions combined'), returned fields (topWeight, volume, minWeight on ranged days), and the failure mode ({needsPick:true, matches:[...]} with nothing fetched). It omits any limit/pagination behavior and permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core scope, and the 'how is my bench press going?' framing earns its place by making selection intuitive. The phrasing is dashed and run-on, so structure is good but not exemplary.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description covers the return shape only partially (some fields, plus the ambiguous-match case) and leaves limit semantics and the full entry structure undefined. Adequate for a read-only history lookup, but not 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the exercise/groupId pair usefully (fuzzy name matching plus grouped exercise IDs), but the third parameter, limit, is never mentioned — and since entries are per-day, 'limit' is ambiguous between days and entries, which is exactly the kind of semantics the schema fails to supply.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: full chronological history for ONE movement ('EVERY time the user has done ONE movement, oldest -> newest'), which separates it from aggregate siblings like get_training_stats or get_strength_profile. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives practical invocation guidance — pass the exercise name 'as the user says it' or a groupId — and specifies the disambiguation path (if several match, ask the user). However, it never states when to prefer this over compare_sessions, get_exercise, or get_strength_profile, so usage context is only implied.

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