Get training statistics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this as a read-only statistics operation. It adds important behavioral nuance beyond the schema: the error condition for missing exercise_id, the fact that exercise_id is ignored for volume, and what each kind returns (top set, est-1RM, volume, PRs, trend %).

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 packed but not bloated; every sentence conveys a distinct requirement or routing rule. It front-loads the core purpose, then the critical exercise_id constraint, then kind semantics, then the alternative tool recommendation. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnly annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: parameter constraints, per-kind behavior, error handling, and when to choose a sibling tool. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and avoid common mistakes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic weight. It thoroughly explains kind's three enum options and the required/ignored behavior of exercise_id. However, date_from is not explicitly described as a filter or range, leaving one parameter partially underspecified.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'Statistics for ONE exercise, or for training as a whole,' and then enumerates the three kinds with distinct meanings. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, especially get_coaching_context, and from list_exercises which is referenced as a helper rather than a substitute.

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 explicitly states when exercise_id is required, when it is ignored, and what happens if the caller omits it for progression/prs. It also gives direct routing advice: use get_coaching_context for coaching decisions Finding the right alternative is fully supported.

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