calculate_one_rep_max

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of three formulas and the four returned values, including the average. Since it is a non-destructive calculation tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and the formulas, the second provides the return structure and a reference to related calculators. No extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the formulas, output, and even directs users to a bundle of related calculators for further 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 input schema already describes both parameters (weight_lifted and reps) with clear descriptions. The description adds value by naming the formulas and specifying the output structure, which goes beyond the schema information.

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 tool estimates 1 repetition maximum from a submaximal lift using three specific formulas (Epley, Brzycki, Lombardi) and lists the output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_1rm_table, though it hints at related calculators via list_bundles.

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 mentions 'See list_bundles for related 'sante' calculators,' which indirectly guides when to use this tool among health calculators. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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