list_target_muscles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return format ('comma-separated list'), the data source ('database'), and the intended use ('for filtering'). For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, this is sufficiently transparent; it omits nothing critical.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The return format is given in a clear, structured way, and every sentence adds useful information without repeating the schema.

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 simple, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how the values are formatted, and their intended use. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all input concerns. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description does not need to provide parameter-level detail. It also adds context that the returned values are meant for filtering.

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 ('Get a list'), the resource ('target muscles'), and the scope ('all available ... in the database'). The resource is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_body_parts and list_equipment.

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 phrase 'can be used for filtering' implies the tool is useful when an agent needs valid target-muscle filter values, likely before calling get_exercises_by_target_muscle. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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