get-exercise-history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It conveys a read-only operation through 'get' and discloses optional date filtering, but it omits details such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or the exact format of the returned sets. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple getter.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the primary action and resource while introducing the optional filters without unnecessary elaboration. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: it states what is returned (past sets) and the optional filter dimensions. It could mention date inclusivity or ordering, but these are not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 67%, with startDate and endDate having descriptions but exerciseTemplateId lacking one. The description compensates by clarifying that the operation targets a specific exercise template (exerciseTemplateId) and that date filters are optional, adding meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 'Get past sets for a specific exercise template' with a specific verb, resource, and qualifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-workout, get-exercise-template, and search-exercise-templates by focusing on historical sets for a known template.

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 the tool is used when retrieving an exercise template's past sets and mentions optional date filters, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Contextual insight from sibling tools is available, but the description itself offers no direct comparison.

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