smartgym_list_routines

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the important behavioral detail that archived routines are excluded by default and only included when include_archived=true, which goes beyond the annotation data. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is a useful addition.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with what is listed and the returned fields. Each subsequent sentence handles archived behavior and usage guidance without redundancy. No sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be repeated. The description still covers the key input behavior and how to use the results downstream. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with get_routine, but it is otherwise sufficient for this low-complexity list tool.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains exactly how include_archived affects the result. The implied default (exclude archived unless true) aligns with the schema default of false. With only one parameter, this is nearly complete for invocation purposes.

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 and resource, 'List routines', and immediately enumerates the returned fields (id, name, days, exercise counts by section). This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools such as get_routine, which would fetch a single routine rather than a list.

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?

It clearly explains the archived-routines condition: archived routines are listed only when include_archived=true. It also advises using the returned id or name in other tools, giving practical follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly compare against get_routine, but the usage context is nevertheless clear.

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