calculate_1rm_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses use of the Epley formula and output fields, but omits behavioral details such as unit handling (kg/lbs), what happens if reps exceed 12 (schema allows up to 30, but description says 'to 12RM'), or table structure (e.g., array of objects).

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 concise with two sentences front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—first states what the tool does, second details return fields and related tools. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately mentions return fields. It adds important context: formula used (Epley), range (1RM-to-12RM), and pointer to related tools. Missing details like table format but sufficient for a simple calculator.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds context about the formula and table output, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for weight and reps.

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 it generates a full 1RM-to-12RM repetition table using the Epley formula, and specifies return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_one_rep_max by mentioning a full table, and directs users to list_bundles for related sport calculators.

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 usage for generating a rep table from a known lift, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_one_rep_max. The reference to list_bundles hints at related tools but provides no criteria for selection.

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