get_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns daily stress data, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. The phrase 'оценка дня' (day assessment) is too vague to convey behavior beyond the tool's name.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It could be restructured to include more key information without becoming verbose. The sentence front-loads the core purpose, but lacks necessary details for an effective tool definition.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to list return fields, but it fails to explain the overall purpose in enough detail. It omits important context such as time range handling, the meaning of 'raw' parameter, and how the stress data relates to other Oura Ring metrics. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (raw, end_date, days_back, start_date) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter—it does not explain what 'raw' means, how date parameters affect results, or the default behavior of days_back. The agent receives no help on how to set these parameters correctly.

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 'Дневной стресс: время под нагрузкой и в восстановлении, оценка дня.' translates to 'Daily stress: time under load and recovery, day assessment.' It vaguely indicates that the tool retrieves daily stress data, but does not specify what exact metrics (e.g., stress score, stress level) or how it relates to the day. It does not effectively differentiate from siblings like get_readiness or get_heartrate.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings, such as get_daily_summary or get_activity, nor does it explain any prerequisites or context for calling it.

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