get_status_summary

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 tool's return structure (current, period_stats, alerts, summary) and the meaning of each part. It also explains the minutes parameter's range and default. It doesn't mention side effects, but this is a read-only operation, and the description clearly implies no modifications. It could add notes on edge cases or data freshness, but the provided detail is solid.

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-organized with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the 'how am I doing?' metaphor adds clarity without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured lists to convey complex information efficiently.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description comprehensively explains all return fields and their content, including a plain-English summary. It also covers the parameter's range and default. For a composite summary tool, this is fully complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results. The only minor gap is that it doesn't clarify whether alerts are only for the specified period, but this is implied.

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, and it does thoroughly. The Args section explains the semantic meaning of 'minutes' as 'Time period for context stats' with a range and default, far beyond the schema's minimal definition. This gives the agent a clear understanding of how the parameter affects the output.

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 function: 'Get a complete status summary' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by combining current glucose, trend, stats, alerts, and a plain-English summary, making it the 'how am I doing?' tool. This clearly separates it from more focused tools like get_current_glucose or get_statistics.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Perfect for quick check-ins, clinical dashboards, or health intelligence apps.' This implies when to use it (when an overall snapshot is needed) but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. However, the context is specific enough to guide selection; a small deduction for missing explicit exclusions.

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