get_steps_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about payload size (~14KB) and interval granularity, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or address any authentication/privacy aspects. For a simple getter this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and immediately adding the most decision-relevant note about size and the alternative. The Args section is minimal and clear. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational points: what it returns, how large the response is, when to use a lighter alternative, and the date format. It could be more complete by addressing the relationship with get_daily_steps, a sibling that likely serves a similar use case, but overall the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description supplies the essential parameter detail: 'date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format.' This compensates for the bare schema definition and tells the agent exactly how to format the only parameter. It does not add range or timezone constraints, but for a single date parameter this is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed steps data with 15-minute intervals.' It clearly conveys what the tool returns, and the note about get_stats() helps differentiate it from the compact-summary alternative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_daily_steps, leaving some ambiguity among step-related tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('detailed steps data with 15-minute intervals') and when to use an alternative: 'For a compact summary, use get_stats() which includes total_steps.' This provides clear routing guidance and an exclusion condition. The size note (~14KB) also helps users decide whether they want full interval data instead.

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