get_floors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose and the date format; it does not mention units, aggregation level, timezone handling, missing-data behavior, or any other operational traits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The Args section is compact and directly useful, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple, has one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally adequate; it allows correct invocation but leaves context and behavioral expectations implicit.

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%, but the description adds the YYYY-MM-DD format for the single date parameter, which the schema does not provide. For a one-parameter tool, this is meaningful and sufficient for basic invocation, though no further semantic detail is given.

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 action and resource: 'Get floors climbed data.' It is clear enough to indicate the tool returns floor-climbing metrics for a date, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling data-retrieval tools like get_steps_data or get_heart_rates.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of related tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage context is the required date argument, which is implied rather than explained.

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