List the user's exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the returned metadata (instructions / video_url / image_url / pool_slug) and the filtering behavior. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the returned list is exhaustive. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the filters, then the usage routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling distinction is included without bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, filters, and relationship to the sibling search_exercise_pool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on filter value formats, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing the four filter names and explaining that `query` is a substring of the name or id. However, it doesn't explain the expected format for `muscle`, `equipment`, or `movement_pattern` (e.g., exact values vs. free text), leaving some ambiguity. This is partial compensation for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('THIS USER's own exercise catalog'), and the scope ('what they have actually trained'). It also names the sibling it is not ('use search_exercise_pool to choose a NEW exercise'), which distinguishes it from the closely related search_exercise_pool tool.

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 says when to use this tool ('Use this to reuse an id the user already has') and when to use the alternative ('use search_exercise_pool to choose a NEW exercise'). This is clear routing guidance that leaves nothing to inference.

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