hl_suggest_general_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns general wellness information, not medical advice, and includes a disclaimer to consult a professional. It also states 'No personal data', indicating privacy considerations. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity about mutation or side effects.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and intensity levels are front-loaded, followed by necessary disclaimers. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean and efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, allowed parameter values, and its non-medical nature. It could mention that it requires no other inputs, but that is implicit from the schema. The disclaimers are helpful, and the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero coverage for the 'intensity' parameter (no description or enum), so the description must compensate. It lists the allowed values (beginner/moderate/advanced) within the text, giving the agent concrete meaning. However, it does not clarify whether the parameter is optional (schema shows required=0) or what happens if omitted, leaving minor 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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'general exercise prescription', specifying the intensity levels (beginner/moderate/advanced). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hl_suggest_general_diet (diet) and hl_health_check (health status), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for exercise-related wellness queries but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does not state 'use this for exercise, not diet' or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The implicit context of 'general exercise prescription' suggests the appropriate use case, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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