get_muscle_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it explains the volume-spreading method, that attributed totals exceed actual load, that they are 'shares of attention, not a decomposition of load,' and that timed/level work is deliberately routed to unweightedExercises rather than counted as zero. It does not state read-only status or auth requirements, but the method and edge-case disclosure are unusually rich.

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 answer to 'what does this return,' then methodological detail and caveats. Dense but each sentence adds real semantic value (ratios, unweighted work, notTrained interpretation); it is on the longer side but not padded.

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 must explain return values — and it does, defining pushPull/upperLower ratios, unweightedExercises, and notTrained. The notable omission is the `days` parameter, and read-only/auth behavior is left implicit.

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?

There is one parameter (`days`, default 30) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never names or explains it — only alluding obliquely to 'recent training' and 'in the window.' Units, default, and the effect of changing the window are left entirely unspecified, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — 'Which muscles the recent training actually loaded, and how balanced it was' — which is concrete and distinctive. It does not name or differentiate from plausible siblings like get_strength_profile or get_training_stats, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 through the health/balance framing ('read it next to `unweightedExercises` before concluding a muscle was neglected'), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings. The reader must guess how this differs from get_training_stats or get_strength_profile.

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