get-exercise-template

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields (name, category, equipment, muscle groups, notes) but does not address error handling (e.g., not-found behavior), authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation. For a tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant transparency gaps.

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, focused sentence (18 words) that front-loads the action and resource. It includes the key information—purpose, identifier, and return fields—without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 get-by-ID tool, the description covers the primary purpose and the key parameter, but it lacks usage alternatives and behavioral details such as not-found responses or output structure. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 only defines exerciseTemplateId as a non-empty string, and the description adds that the tool operates 'by its ID', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, no additional details such as ID format, example values, or any extra context are given, so the description only minimally compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('Get complete details'), the resource ('specific exercise template'), and the mode ('by its ID'), while also listing the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-exercise-templates (list) and search-exercise-templates, making the 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 that the tool is used when a specific exercise template ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives like get-exercise-templates or search-exercise-templates. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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