Activity rings

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: one entry per day, newest first, the coverage block semantics, the meaning of more_available, and the warning not to report a limit-shaped window as the data extent. This adds substantial value and does not contradict annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage and interpretation guidance. The structure is logical and not bloated, though the emoji and dense coverage explanation could be streamlined without losing value.

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 complexity (coverage block, pagination, owner filtering) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the tricky parts well. It leaves `fresh` unexplained, but that parameter is likely a cache-bypass flag that the agent may infer from the name. Overall, it is highly complete for its complexity.

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 explain parameters. It explains `owner` (prefix filter) and `limit` implicitly through the coverage discussion (re-read with a larger limit), but `fresh` is entirely unmentioned. This is a partial coverage of a three-parameter tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Decrypt) and resource (recent daily activity rings) and lists the exact metrics (steps, active energy kcal, exercise minutes, stand hours, distance km). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_water_intake or get_weight_trend, so an agent can pick it without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on filtering by owner and how to interpret the coverage block, which are key usage contexts. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is so specific that the intended use is obvious; the coverage caveat also tells when to re-read with a larger limit.

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