get_exercise_history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, with no contradiction in the description. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as that exercise_name 'resolves to canonical, or says so if never logged' and that 'Banded and unbanded PRs are shown side-by-side when both exist.' This extra detail about resolution and output formatting earns a score above the baseline of 3.

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 well-structured with distinct sections (overview, USE FOR, NOT, INFER) and uses bullet-like lines for readability. However, some information is repeated (e.g., the opening paragraph already mentions all-time PR and recent performance, and the USE FOR section restates these examples). This slight redundancy keeps it from a perfect score, but it remains clear and reasonably concise.

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?

The description is thorough for the tool's complexity. It details the output contents (est. 1RM PR, exact set, date, weight, reps, RPE, banded vs unbanded, superset siblings, notes, rep-range bests, recent sessions, delta), explains the optional parameters' effects, and covers edge cases like 'never logged.' Given that no output schema is shown, this descriptive completeness is essential and well-executed.

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 100% (all three parameters are described). The description adds semantic nuance that improves parameter understanding: since_date 'narrows only the Recent block; the PR is always all-time,' recent_limit is 'default 10, capped at 50,' and exercise_name is 'free-text — the tool resolves to canonical.' This additional guidance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'Look up everything the user has done for ONE exercise: all-time PR plus recent performance, across many sessions.' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource (exercise history), and a clear scope (one exercise). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_workout and list_workouts by mentioning 'NOT for a full session' and 'or a date-window list regardless of 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 explicitly lists use cases under 'USE FOR:' (PR lookups, recent-activity questions, trend questions) and non-use cases under 'NOT for' (full session, date-window list), naming the appropriate sibling tools (get_workout, list_workouts). It also provides operational guidance under 'INFER — do not ask:' for each parameter, making the intended usage unambiguous.

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