mfp_get_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns both exercise categories with fields like duration, calories, sets, reps, and weight, and it returns a string representation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. The parameter details are somewhat redundant with the nested schema, but they earn their place given the low coverage signal.

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 read-only lookup tool, this description is complete: it states the date scope, output format choice, return type, and the kind of data returned. The strong annotations and output schema cover the remaining context.

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 top-level schema coverage signal is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly documenting date (optional, YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today) and response_format (markdown or json). It does not add semantics beyond the nested schema, but it presents enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get logged exercises for a specific date.' It further clarifies scope by saying it returns both cardiovascular and strength training exercises, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_search_exercises or mfp_log_exercise.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs the user's logged exercises for a particular date, including both cardio and strength details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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