List wearable samples

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it lists samples with optional filters, but does not go beyond what annotations imply. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering) disclosed.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, return values do not need description. However, with 6 optional parameters and no explanation of defaults or filtering behavior, the description is adequate but not thorough. It misses details like default limit of 500.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'type/source/date' which maps to sample_type, source_id, and since/until, but does not explain the user, limit, since/until format, or meaning. With 6 parameters, this is partial coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'wearable samples', with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wearable_sources and add_wearable_sample. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'all samples' without filters).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_wearable_samples vs list, or add_wearable_sample). No explicit when-not or context for selection. The description is purely functional.

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